Preamble

The House met at half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Hazardous Waste

Mr. Litherland: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indicate the extent of the importation of hazardous wastes into Greater Manchester for treatment or disposal in the last two years, and the routes used for the movements of these wastes.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): Details of hazardous waste imported into the United Kingdom are not held centrally. However, I am advised by the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority that the total amount of foreign waste imported into its area was 7,770 tonnes in 1985 and 11,937 tonnes in 1986. Figures for 1987 are not yet available.
The authority records the point of entry into the United Kingdom and the final destination of each consignment, but not the route taken.

Mr. Litherland: Is the Minister aware that because other European countries are placing restrictions on the import of hazardous waste materials the United Kingdom in general, and Greater Manchester in particular, are expressing concern that we are becoming the dustbin of Europe? With this extra workload the site operatives may well be flouting the rules and regulations that apply to waste disposal.

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that waste imports amount to a small percentage of the total waste disposal in the United Kingdom —0·5 per cent. annually. He will also agree that the critical factor is that we should have the right facilities and the capacity to handle hazardous wastes. I hope that he will welcome the directive on trans-frontier shipment of hazardous waste, to which we are hoping to adhere as soon as possible. It will increase the amount of information that is available across boundaries and thus help to ensure safe handling and the effectiveness of the regulations that are currently in force.

Mrs. Peacock: Ismyhon. Friend examining ways in which to improve controls over the handling of hazardous wastes?

Mr. Moynihan: We are looking at ways of improving controls; for example, by extending the special waste regulations to cover all pollution risks, improving the

consignment note procedure and introducing a statutory code of practice to put greater responsibilities on the producers of waste to ensure its safe disposal. We are examining the possibility of registering waste carriers and extending the powers of licensing authorities. Those are all ways of improving control, and deep consideration is being given to every one of them.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Minister aware that his answers will be thought amazingly complacent? Why are we importing any hazardous waste into this country when we have enough of our own to dispose of? The Minister told me in a parliamentary answer that in 1983 we imported 14,824 tonnes of hazardous waste from abroad. By 1986 that had escalated to 53,000 tonnes. Has that escalation continued? Why does the hon. Gentleman's Department not know what happens to the waste when it arrives in this country, or how it is disposed of, or where it goes? Surely we do not need to rescue the British economy, which the Government claim is not ailing, by buying the rest of Europe's hazardous waste?

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have a long history of waste control, and it is essential that the treatment and disposal operators be required to achieve the highest standards. The export of a waste disposal service is an important industry, as long as we continue to have the right facilities and the capability to handle hazardous wastes properly. Far from being complacent, the Government are dedicated to ensuring that every possible control is exercised to ensure an effective, well-managed and highly proficient industry.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are a limited number of people with the high skills required for controlling waste, and that it is therefore better to concentrate on a few sites than to have the waste scattered hither and yon over Europe?

Mr. Moynihan: I completely agree with my hon. Friend that this country has the highest competence and that we should utilise it, so I agree with the thrust of her question.

Local Authorities (Land Holdings)

Mr. John M. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the introduction of a compulsory requirement for local authorities to schedule and publish their land ownings.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from my hon. Friend and others on this subject.

Mr. Taylor: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that local authorities are trustees of ratepayers' assets? Does he further agree that this register should not be voluntary, but should be compulsory?

Mr. Howard: I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. He asks that the register be made compulsory. We are presently awaiting the outcome of a working group made up of CIPFA, the local authority associations and the Audit Commission. They are considering this matter and we intend to await their conclusions before taking any further decisions.

Mr. Tony Banks: What about a register of Government-held land? For example, the Ministry of


Defence is holding land like some sort of medieval land baron. It has over 500,000 acres. What efforts is the Minister making to put pressure on some of his colleagues, such as the Secretary of State for Defence, so that land that is not necessary for such Departments is released for more useful social purposes?

Mr. Howard: The Ministry of Defence has particular needs which lead to its land holdings, and the Government are taking every step to ensure that it does not hold any land that it is not necessary and desirable for it to hold.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: In our campaign for inner-city regeneration the availability and ready development of land is an important component. While local authority land is important, surely inner city land held by statutory undertakings and by private owners is equally important. Perhaps a register giving an overall picture would go a long way towards helping us in the campaign to regenerate our cities.

Mr. Howard: I am sure that my hon. Friend will not overlook the role of market forces in making that land available. As time goes on we expect more and more of that land to become available.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept the overwhelming case for a land register of all land held by all private and public bodies? That was recommended by the Law Commission and there is a Land Registration Bill in the other place proposed by Lord Templeman. One way for everybody to know what is available, to prevent speculation and to develop the inner cities is open access to information about the identities of landlords. Will the Government say that they are willing to support that principle and do something about it?

Mr. Howard: The Government support the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I have written to him today on that very subject.

Planning Policy

Mr. Nicholas Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals for reform of the planning system.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Marion Roe): We have made many improvements to the planning system in recent years. We expect to make an announcement shortly about our conclusions on the future of the structure and local plan system.

Mr. Baker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the planning system is failing to prevent the over-development of our countryside and failing to encourage development in the inner cities, where we want it? Does she also agree that at the moment our planning system is developer-driven and is allowed to be driven by bodies such as Consortium Developments? Will she now look at the task of revising the planning circulars?

Mrs. Roe: Later today we will give the House details of two new series of planning policy guidance and mineral planning guidance notes that are published today. I do not wish to anticipate the detailed written answer that will be given later, but the purpose is to make our planning advice clearer and more accessible. That should increase certainty for developers and others, and I think that it will be widely welcomed.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the interests of good planning, the views of local people should be taken into account, and that the way to take them into account is to listen to what locally elected representatives have to say to the local planning committee? Again and again planning applications are overturned on appeal, and that is disillusioning for elected councillors, who are doing their best for local people.

Mrs. Roe: I have read with interest my hon. Friend's views on changes in the planning system, which were published in "This Pleasant Land". I do not think that everything he proposes is practical or desirable, but there is widespread agreement about the need to encourage development in urban areas and to protect our countryside as much as possible. It is encouraging that nearly half the land for house building is now found from reused sites or vacant urban areas. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to "The Future of Development Plans", which was published by the Government in September 1986.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the argument on the Tory Benches will make very interesting reading? It seems that the two strong interests within the Tory party — first, City financiers and developers and, secondly, farmers and those who represent the rural interest—are having a battle royal. Opposition Members, happily, are in favour of planning, but I must say that we look on this skirmish with more than a little amusement.

Mrs. Roe: I cannot comment on any specific proposal for a new settlement for which an application may have been made, or is being prepared. [HON. MEMBERS: "No one asked the hon. Lady to do so."] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned new consortia.
The argument is basically about the green belt. We have made clear how important we consider the green belt and its protection against inappropriate development. We have gone so far as to say that if developers propose schemes that are manifestly inappropriate in the green belt and there is an unnecessary planning inquiry, they risk an award of costs against them. I remind the House that the area of approved green belt has been more than doubled since 1979, from 1·8 million acres to 4·5 million acres.

Mr. David Nicholson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposals, when they come forward, need to include developments by gipsies? Does she recall, from correspondence that I have had with her on behalf of Taunton Deane borough council, that the borough council and my constituents are embarrassed and affronted by the fact that, under existing regulations, gipsies may make developments which other citizens are prohibited from making?

Mrs. Roe: It is for county councils to make provision for the number of gipsies in their area, and to bring to the Secretary of State proposals to find appropriate accommodation for them.

Dr. Cunningham: Whether or not we have a new planning Act, what is the purpose of planning controls if the present Secretary of State for the Environment, having followed the procedures, then overrules the decision of inspectors? That has happened twice recently. The first instance was in Cumbria, at North Stainmore—an area of outstanding natural beauty — when the right hon. Gentleman overruled the inspector's report from the inquiry and allowed the Ministry of Defence access to and


use of land, against the inspector's specific recommendation. More recently, in county Durham, when the inspector reported that it would be entirely against the environmental interests in the area to allow an application for opencast mining, the right hon. Gentleman again acted contrary to the inspector's recommendations and report.
What is the purpose of any planning controls, when that sort of thing is going on?

Mrs. Roe: We have made it absolutely clear that we have no intention of dismantling any planning system. Our approach is purely to simplify and improve the system. Every application is decided on its merits. The inspector's role is to advise the Secretary of State for the Environment, and the ultimate decision lies with him.

Mr. David Martin: On the theme of taking local views into account, will my hon. Friend consider the reform of the planning procedures? When local authorities give themselves planning permission for a particular development, should there not be a right of appeal to her Department if, say, 20 or 25 local electors wish for one? Should not local authorities and private individuals be considered on an equal basis in that regard?

Mrs. Roe: As I have already informed the House, the future of development plans is under consultation and consideration, and no doubt those points will be taken into account.

Legal Services

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to privatise legal services provided to his Department.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 14 January that Sir Robert Andrew will undertake a review of the Government legal services. Sir Robert will take account of our policies of privatisation and contracting-out, and will cover legal services provided to my Department.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the Secretary of State aware that, for once, I had no notion of the answer to my question? Could he be a bit more explicit about the Andrew terms of reference? What exactly does he mean by "take account"? What is to be the future of the parliamentary draftsmen? Whereas nobody in his right mind would begrudge the Secretary of State the services of the best counsel —heaven knows, he could have done with it in the past and might need it again—is there not a real problem for civil servants in the legal services available to the Government? What is their future?

Mr. Ridley: I understand that the terms of reference are:
To consider: what legal services are needed by the Government; how those services can most effectively and economically be provided and organised, taking account of the Government's policies of privatisation and of contracting out; what changes are needed in the management of legal staff in Government service, including their recruitment, retention, training, deployment and remuneration, so as to make best use of them".
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's conversion to the virtues of private sector provision. I must warn him in his enthusiasm that the private sector occasionally does not make a success of it — after all, he was privately educated.

Mr. Heddle: As my right hon. Friend's Department is responsible for the legal services provided by local government, does he share my grave concern at the length of time that a number of Left-wing Labour local authorities take to reply to local search inquiries by solicitors? Is he aware that the Law Commission suggested that 10 days is a reasonable time, but that the London boroughs of Hackney, Islington, Camden and many others take up to three months to reply to simple inquiries? Is that not an affront to nurses, teachers and first-time buyers who want to buy their own homes simply and without delay? Will my right hon. Friend consider imposing sanctions or possibly privatising such services when local authorities offend the code?

Mr. Ridley: I agree that it is very important to reply to searches as quickly as possible. I shall consider my hon. Friends suggestions. They could even be the subject of the contracting-out policy in the Local Government Bill I shall have a look at what my hon. Friend has suggested.

Water Meters

Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated cost of installing water meters in multi-storey flats and in properties on a common supply pipe.

Mr. Moynihan: No such estimate has been made. One of the objectives of the proposed metering trials is to help the industry assess the costs and practicality of metering multi-storey flats and properties served by a common supply pipe.

Miss Lestor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that discussions which are presently taking place about the future of the water industry are causing a great deal of concern in constituencies such as mine where there are common supply pipes in multi-storey flats? Will he therefore give me an assurance that any costs associated with converting those properties—should the devastating proposals concerning water and privately-owned meters go through—will not be borne by the consumer?

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Lady will be aware that in the Committee considering the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill we are discussing amendments to ensure that the cost burden moves from owners to undertakers, thus reforming the Water Acts of 1845 and 1951. The major changes will require owners to have separate joint supplies explicitly for the purpose of metering. I can give the hon. Lady an undertaking that the burden will not fall on them.

Mr. Jack: Is my hon. Friend aware that those in privately owned sheltered accommodation who have opted for water metering have achieved substantial savings?

Mr. Moynihan: Some consumers have indeed benefited from metering. One of the important issues involved with the compulsory trial schemes that are being proposed is the effect of metering on a range of consumers in a certain locality. Schemes will enable undertakers to identify technical difficulties associated with putting meters in properties.

Mr. Boyes: The Minister knows that there are tremendous cost and technical difficulties associated with putting meters into multi-storey flats. How does he square


that with the fact that, for 70 hours or more of consideration of the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill, he has tried to convince us that water meters will be fairer because consumers will be able to control how much water they consume? Is he not getting himself into an awful problem and a difficult contradiction?

Mr. Moynihan: I am glad to say that we have encountered no problems so far in the 70 hours of Committee proceedings to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Indeed, I thank him for his perceptive and useful analysis of the problems, including the problem that he has just mentioned. A lot of satisfactory work has been done on the matter that he raised. In reply to his first point, undertakers will have to consider the effect of metering and the effect of charges on metering, which will range beyond the single option referred to by the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) and raised by the hon. Gentleman in Committee yesterday.

Homelessness

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what sums he has allocated to local authorities for the relief of homelessness in the current financial year and the next.

Mrs. Roe: Gross provision for local authorities' capital expenditure on housing will rise from £2,920 million in the current financial year to £3,048 million next, an increase of 4 per cent. It is for local authorities to decide what resources to devote to the homeless, but the Government have urged that priority should be given to those in special need, and £25 million of the special supplementary allocation announced in December last was targeted on authorities with the greatest homelessness needs.

Mr. Cohen: Has not the cost of housing the homeless rocketed over the past year to well over £100 million? Has not the Government's response been much too late and much too little? My borough, which is in the top 20 boroughs with housing problems, according to the Department's survey, has allocated all its available homes to homeless families at the expense of desperate waiting list families and it has not received an extra penny from the Government. Are not the Government hopeless with the homeless?

Mrs. Roe: While there has been a reduction in local authorities' allocations, from £136 million in 1987–88 to £129 million in 1988–89, that is more than offset by the increase in capital receipts available to local authorities. Overall, local authorities' capital spending will increase by 4 per cent. Many councils have only themselves to blame for such a high cost of meeting their obligations to the homeless. Often they place the homeless in bed-and-breakfast accommodation needlessly when there are cheaper ways to deal with the problem. Authorities should be spending more of their receipts from the sale of council homes on bringing empty properties back into use. It is a scandal that 112,000 council homes are lying empty of which about 28,000 have been vacant for more than one year.

Mr. Kilfedder: As a considerable percentage of the homeless people in Britain, and as many as 50 per cent. of the young homeless in London, come from the Irish Republic, will the Minister seek to raise at the next meeting of the Anglo-Eire Conference the question of conditions

in the Republic which force so many in the Republic to seek sanctuary in Britain, where indeed they are welcome? Will the Minister also raise the question of a financial contribution towards accommodation in Britain for those young people?

Mrs. Roe: I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the notice of my right hon. Friend. However, I must stress that it is for a local authority to decide how to carry out its statutory duties regarding the homeless.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister concede that her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was an insult to the many homeless people in London who are forced to live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation or, where they are denied such accommodation—as many are—are forced to sleep on the streets of this capital city? My council received only £800,000 towards its costs for bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Will the Minister assure the House that in future the full extra burden of bed-and-breakfast costs on local authorities will be met by the Government, instead of the Government imposing penalties on councils that seek to alleviate the problems of homelessness?

Mrs. Roe: It is for local authorities to decide how to accommodate the homeless people for whom they accept responsibility. Our code of guidance advises the use of bed and breakfast accommodation only as a last resort. That accommodation is extremely expensive. On average it costs £30 per family per day and it is particularly unsuitable for families for any length of time. It is very surprising that some authorities such as Camden, Brent and Tower Hamlets use bed and breakfast accommodation extensively, while others, such as Greenwich, which suffer similar problems, manage to avoid it.

Sir George Young: Does my hon. Friend recall the thoughtful speech made by the Minister for Housing and Planning at the party conference? He said that he was considering an extension of the transferable discount scheme to make more impact on tackling homelessness in London. When does the Department hope to come to a conclusion on an extension of that scheme?

Mrs. Roe: I remember the comments that my hon. Friend made at the party conference. We are still considering that proposal.

Mr. Winnick: In view of the reply that the Minister gave me just before Christmas, that it was no longer the function of local authorities to build, is it not the case that there will be far more homelessness and more people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation? The Minister criticises local authorities for putting homeless people into bed and breakfast accommodation, but where are they expected to go — on the pavement? It is absolutely essential that local authorities should once again be able to build accommodation for people who cannot afford mortgages. The only way that such people can have decent accommodation is through the local authorities.

Mrs. Roe: Local authorities must make far better use of their existing housing stock. As I said earlier, local authorities now have more than 112,000 empty properties, and no fewer than 25 per cent. of those have been empty for more than a year. The number of local authority properties empty for more than a year is nearly three times the number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We have sought to help local authorities to take


empty properties back into use through the estate action scheme. We have approved schemes totalling nearly £5·5 million for some 1,200 dwellings since August 1986, and, more recently, through our £25 million supplementary allocations.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that the London borough of Camden, with its problems of homelessness, has admitted to paying out between £1 million and £5 million to the owners of bed and breakfast accommodation for accommodation that has never been occupied? What steps does she propose to stop that ineptitude, and worse, occurring in other Labour-controlled London boroughs?

Mrs. Roe: I am aware of the press reports about the bed-and-breakfast problems in Camden. We are now awaiting the borough's official report on the matter. Clearly there has been a significant waste of ratepayers' money. Might I also add that that authority has more empty properties within its total housing stock than families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Indeed, 423—or 40 per cent.—of its empty dwellings have been empty for more than a year. Rent arrears in Camden were £4·4 million at the latest count. Those figures show that if Camden made better use of its housing stock by sorting out its housing management system it would be able to meet its responsibilities for homeless people without resorting to bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

Mr. Soley: The Minister's reply was a disgraceful insult to homeless people and to Conservative and Labour local authorities. Local authorities have a smaller percentage of their properties empty than have the Government, who have three times as many empty properties. When will the Government bring those properties into use? Local authorities have fewer empty properties than have housing associations or the private sector. What will the Minister do about that? What will she do about the fact that it is cheaper for the country to build a new home — the Government have cut housebuilding by two thirds since 1979 — than to keep a family in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for a year? When will she alleviate the crisis of homelessness in Britain?

Mrs. Roe: Government Departments own residential property for operational reasons, and they need to preserve their operational flexibility. Those Departments with significant numbers of empty dwellings are urged to bring them back into use, and, when they are no longer needed, to sell them as quickly as possible. Where they have no immediate operational need for them, but where disposal is not practical, they are encouraged to let them temporarily to local authorities or housing associations to help with the problem of homelessness.
I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) to the Housing Bill. All the Bill's proposals will benefit homeless people and those in poor quality housing. I urge the hon. Gentleman to support the Bill.

Rating Reform

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from Leicester city council about the effect of the poll tax on the residents of Leicester.

Mr. Howard: Leicester city council responded to the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government". It has made no subsequent representations.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the poll tax, some 65 per cent. of Leicester citizens will pay more rates than they used to and that the average household, instead of paying £180 as now, will pay £220 —[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading"]—and that a household with two adults is likely to pay 21 per cent. more tax? In such circumstances, all the figures should be read out, not only by me, but by Conservative Members.

Mr. Howard: The hon. and learned Gentleman's point would have a little more force if it was not based on a report that was flawed in certain fundamental respects, as was the report recently produced by Leicester city council. The figures that I announced last week show that, over the country as a whole, 53 per cent. of households will benefit from the introduction of the community charge. The charge will be of wider and greater benefit to everyone in this country because it will introduce a much fairer and more accountable method of paying for local government.

Sports and Leisure Facilities

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what responses he has received to the consultation exercise on competition in the management of local authority sports and leisure facilities ; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Moynihan: Three hundred and fifty two responses have been received to the consultation paper issued by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Scotland and for Wales on 28 September 1987. The paper invited comments by 11 December 1987 and the responses are now being considered in detail.

Mr. Pike: Will the Minister recognise the widespread concern among local authorities about the possible introduction of competition in the provision of such important services, bearing in mind also a parallel consultation paper that suggests that some local authorities may have to invite tenders for such services in April 1989? Will he give an assurance that he will reach a decision on this as soon as possible? Indeed, will he say now that the Government do not intend to proceed in that direction?

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are committed to consider all the representations that they have received, and for me to preempt chat consultation exercise would be wrong. However, I give him the undertaking that, as soon as possible, we shall make an announcement, and I hope that that will take place early in February.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend accept that the majority of Conservative Members believe that competitive tendering can bring substantial savings to ratepayers? Does he further accept that the majority of leisure and sports facilities run by local authorities are losing enormous amounts of money? If that money can be saved my hon. Friend will be doing a great service to sport., ratepayers and the sports industry.

Mr. Moynihan: I fully endorse that view.

Mr. Douglas: The Minister has no direct responsibility for Scotland, but will he take into consideration the fact


that examples of the Government's financial strictures in Scotland include the possible closure of the only swimming pool on the Western Isles—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may think that is funny, but it represents an important local provision. Will the Minister state to the House how many local authorities in England and Wales, and possibly in Scotland, support the thrust of that particularly obnoxious policy?

Mr. Moynihan: I do not believe that the results from the proposals currently being considered by the Government will be those anticipated by the hon. Gentleman. For the record, I place before the House the fact that we have had many responses from a widespread group of interested parties, not least the governing bodies of sport. If one considers the views of those groups, it is clear that, from greyhound racing to sea anglers, from badminton to squash, from the Jockey Club to the Lawn Tennis Association, all are fully supportive of the Government's proposals.

Mr. David Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that the extensive sporting facilities at Luton Town football club are widely used by the local authority?
At the weekend my hon. Friend spoke of English clubs being allowed back into Europe at the end of this season. Does he agree that his view was vindicated by the fact that last night Luton Town allowed visiting fans back into the stadium for the first time in 18 months? That resulted in three arrests and one policeman being taken to hospital. That suggests that my hon. Friend's view is absolutely right and that English clubs should not be allowed back into Europe until the season comes to an end.

Mr. Moynihan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution. I should like to add a strong message of support to those who are now negotiating in UEFA if they are negotiating on the basis that re-admission of English clubs must be conditional on the behaviour of our fans, not only throughout the rest of the domestic season, but throughout the European championships, which will take place in West Germany. Any decision that is not conditional upon that is wrong.
May I congratulate my hon. Friend's club on the important community initiatives that it has developed? I recommend that other clubs use their facilities for similar community purposes.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate that we do not often get sports questions, but the question is about local authority sporting facilities.

Mr. Pendry: Will the Minister make a firm decision to stop the nonsense of privatising sports and leisure facilities, especially in view of the many submissions that he has had? Certainly he has had one from the Amateur Swimming Association, whose patron is no less a person than Her Majesty The Queen, which states clearly:
Any attempts to make learning to swim more difficult and more expensive must be a retrograde step.
Will the Minister stand tall for sport on this occasion at least?

Mr. Moynihan: We have no proposals to privatise local authority recreational facilities. The privatisation of management contracts, as the hon. Member well knows, is sought to improve competition in the running of facilities. That has been our main task throughout the

consultation exercise. The hon. Gentleman referred to a governing body whose patron is Her Majesty The Queen. I refer him—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not bring the royal family into our arguments in the Chamber.

Mr. Moynihan: The Lawn Tennis Association, which the hon. Gentleman knows well, and which has widespread support throughout the country, is very supportive of the concept and would see it as an opportunity to increase and improve the utilisation of facilities in the public sector.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is real unfairness between local authority provided sporting amenities, which do not pay rates, and privately provided sporting amenities, where rates are paid? Is this not totally unfair, and should not the position be rectified soon?

Mr. Moynihan: One of the important reasons for bringing forward the consultation document was to ensure that the private sector had an opportunity to bid for the management of local authority facilities. I am certain that the introduction of competition into the running of facilities would be a major improvement and would provide the answer to my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is it not the case that the overwhelming majority of local authorities and sports organisations are opposed to the proposition that sports facilities and swimming baths which have been provided by the community should be handed over to private management? That is a prescription that will ensure that no local authority will ever again build another swimming pool or sports facility. Since this ludicrous policy was conceived before the hon. Gentleman took office, will he understand that he has our full support for burying it as soon as possible? Will he ensure that if schools opt out of the state system they should not take with them the dual use sports facilities which were provided by the community for the benefit of the whole neighbourhood? Will he seek in those cases to protect the use of those facilities for all sporting organisations?

Mr. Moynihan: The right hon. Gentleman will note that in the consultation paper it was specifically stated that it is not intended that the competitive tender regime should apply to sports facilities which form an integral part of educational establishments and which are provided principally for the use of pupils and students at those establishments. I fully appreciate the importance of the thrust of his argument with regard to dual use facilities. A sensitive reappraisal of the management of facilities in local authority control will lead to an increase in use.

Mr. Holt: While my hon. Friend is considering this problem, would he care to consider the ice rink at Billingham, which is currently run by private management under licence from the local authority? The local authority has said that it will not renew the licence, not because the rink does not provide a good service for the people—because it does—and not because it is making money—because it is not — but because it says that only councillors in the town hall can run a sporting facility for the local community.

Mr. Moynihan: If my hon. Friend cares to send me the details, I shall consider the matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed a good run on that question. We must now proceed more rapidly.

Property Fraud

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to combat property fraud within the areas of development corporations; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ridley: Urban development corporations take all reasonable action to detect fraud. If cases of alleged fraud are discovered, it is a matter for the police.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that there has been at least one conviction of a property developer dealing in docklands property recently, and that there have been at least two investigations by the Metropolitan and City police of allegations of complaints about property fraud and abuse in docklands'? Given that the Secretary of State is now setting up further development corporations and that there have been major abuses, will he have serious discussions with the National Audit Office, which is preparing a report on accountancy controls, to be published in April, with the police forces and with the corporations themselves, so that we can ensure that the regime for dealing with property and its handling in docklands and other development corporation areas is not subject to such widespread abuse in the future?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman makes allegations of widespread abuse and fraud which are not substantiated. I resented bitterly the last time that he raised this point, when he mentioned an individual by name. If he has any complaints against any individual and believes that there is any evidence of fraud, he should immediately tell the police, and not mention names in the House.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: In view of the attempt by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to smear the London Docklands Development Corporation and the whole marvellous movement that has done so much for central London, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the development corporation has done a remarkable job? Many houses for local people have been built, many jobs have been created and a tube line has been built, all of which flies in the face of what was claimed by the Opposition parties. They claimed that none of this would be achieved, and all that they are trying to do now is to denigrate what is being done and what will be done in the future.

Mr. Ridley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. What has been done is striking and astonishing and has been done in the face of hostility from both Opposition parties. I hope that they will now recognise that the London Docklands Development Corporation has been scrupulous in ensuring standards of professional conduct at every level throughout its organisation.

Rating Reform

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the average poll tax bill in England and Wales that is likely to be faced by a young single person with an annual income of £2,500 compared with the figure for someone earning £25,000 per year.

Mr. Howard: If the community charge had been fully in force in 1987–88, the average charge in England and

Wales would have been £219. A young single person with an income of £2,500 per annum would be likely to receive a rebate.

Mr. McAllion: The Minister should know that the cuts which the Government are implementing make rebate schemes of very limited benefit. The Low Pay Unit has estimated that single people under the age of 25 will lose their entitlement to rebate when their annual income exceeds the princely sum of £2,380. Given that the Minister told the Daily Telegraph in July 1986 that, under the current system of local government finance, someone earning £25,000 per year would be paying 20 times as much as someone on £2,500 a year towards the cost of local services, how can he describe it as fairer that these two groups should now pay exactly the same, when it means that those earning £25,000 per year will pay much less and those earning £2,500 per year will pay more?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said in the article to which he referred. It is the case that the highest 10 per cent. of households by income will continue to contribute about 16 times as much as the lowest 10 per cent. of households by income to the cost of local authority services when the community charge is in force.

Mr. Squire: Has my hon. and learned Friend noted that the number of people who are unhappy with the community charge has apparently risen to nearly 70 per cent.? Is he satisfied with that level, or does he have any proposals to bring forward that will have some effect in reducing the community charge's current unpopularity?

Mr. Howard: I certainly saw the poll to which my hon. Friend referred. The conclusion was based on a clear misunderstanding of the effect of the proposals. Only 23 per cent. of those who responded to the poll thought that their households would be better off as a result of our proposals. In fact, 53 per cent. of households will be better off. If that fact had been more widely understood, the results of the poll would have been rather different.

Mr. Allen McKay: As the legislation reads, it appears that a person with a dual residence or a static caravan will pay two poll taxes. In that case, does it mean that the Prime Minister will pay one charge for a residence in Dulwich, one for the tied cottage at 10 Downing street, and another for her holiday home at Chequers?

Mr. Howard: We have made it perfectly clear that people with second or third homes will pay standard community charges in respect of such homes to a maximum of twice the community charge for the local authority in the areas in which such homes are situated.

Mr. Riddick: Will my hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to give us some more details concerning the rebate scheme that will be available for people on modest incomes and for pensioners? Does he not believe that a £6,000 savings limit will hit those pensioners who have actually been prudent enough to save during their working lives? Will he reassure me that people in my constituency—for example, pensioners and those on modest incomes —will be properly protected under the proposals?

Mr. Howard: I cannot give my hon. Friend details of the rebates. We are talking about a scheme that will not be enforced until April 1990. He will not expect final decisions about such rebates to have been made at this


stage. I can tell my hon. Friend that 80 per cent. of single pensioners will pay less under the community charge than they pay in rates.

Mr. Rooker: Will the Minister therefore confirm that one in five single pensioners will pay more under the poll tax system than they pay under the rates system? Will he confirm what he said in answer to the original question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion)? The Secretary of State said that a person who is earning £25,000 a year will pay 20 times as much to a local authority as a man on £2,500 a year. That is exactly the same figure as the Minister used in the Daily Telegraph article.
For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister confirm that a young,single person on £2,500 a year, who, because of fear of physical violence, happens to seek refuge, will be required to pay the poll tax, but, because of such fear, will be able to have his name excluded from the poll tax register? However, the person who earns, say £25,000 a year and is the head of the security services will not even pay the poll tax.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's point is based on a misunderstanding. Those who, for security reasons, will be exempt from payment of the community charge will be obliged to make a contribution in lieu to the armed forces. That payment will be allocated in due course to the local authority concerned. It is not the case that they will not have to pay.
The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is simple. I should have thought that a change that benefits four out of five single pensioners would be widely welcomed by those who have the interests of pensioners at heart.

Vacant Land

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of land are currently in the Government land register of public vacant land; and how many acres of public land have been removed from the register since its inception.

Mr. Ridley: On 31 December 1987 the registers of unused and underused land owned by public bodies contained details of 91,000 acres. Since the first registers were compiled in 1981, 66,000 acres of land have been removed from them.

Mr. Steen: As the planning process seems to create a situation in which more vacant public land continues to be placed on the register, does my right hon. Friend agree that, even at the present rate of disposal, which is commendable, and even if he speeds it up, which will be better, there will still be many tens of thousands of acres of public land on the register by the turn of the century? Is not some new initiative now required to get rid of surplus public land? I refer to initiatives such as privatising land, handing it over to private companies to market and sell, or handing to public authorities the lion's share of it once it has been disposed of.

Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is far too much vacant urban land. He will be encouraged to know that in 1986, 46 per cent. of all new development in England took place on previously used or vacant urban land, which was a good use of that vacant land. I am awaiting the report of the Audit Commission, which is

looking into this matter, which may give some suggestions on how to proceed. Further powers that will speed up the operation of the registers are being sought in the Local Government Bill.

Mr. Hardy: Does not the disposal of publicly owned land become absurd if such a policy leads to rapid housing development but the relevant local authorities are prevented from providing schools and other services that such development makes necessary?

Mr. Ridley: If that conjunction of circumstances occurred it would be absurd, but it does not. There are many ways whereby such development can follow from the bringing into use of vacant land.

Mr. Gow: With regard to the figure of 91,000 acres—much of which is in urban areas but suitable for housing — does my right hon. Friend think that the bringing into use of that land is of great importance, particularly in relieving the huge housing problems and building on rural areas? Will my right hon. Friend take further powers to bring those acres of land into use?

Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend. Such powers as are necessary are being taken in the Local Government Bill. However, not all that land is in places where there is a demand for it. Some of it is. There is no point in acquiring land in an area where there is no developer or industrialist who wishes to use it. We must ensure that those who want to use the land can do so. Again, I advertise that if there is any developer, investor, housebuilder or housing association that wishes to use vacant land in the ownership of various authorities, all that he has to do is to apply to my Department and, if it is truly vacant, we will ensure that it is made available to him.

Radioactive Waste

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the management of nuclear waste.

Mr. Moynihan: My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations, which have been referred to Nirex.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that when British Nuclear Fuels offered up West Cumbria as a sacrificial lamb in a quest to find a national facility for disposal of intermediate-level nuclear waste, it had no mandate from the district authorities, no mandate from the county authorities and no mandate for doing so from the industrial development auhorities responsible for creating jobs in West Cumbria? Will the Minister give an assurance that this decision will be taken on the most objective of criteria and will not be influenced by the whims of the monopolist employer and dominator of the West Cumbrian economy—British Nuclear Fuels?

Mr. Moynihan: I can give that categorical assurance.

Mr. Michael Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have a certain amount of sympathy with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), and I, can imagine what his constituents must be going through? Will my hon. Friend draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that if the Labour party were in Government arrangements would now be in hand for a low-level


shallow facility for the disposal of intermediate and low-level waste? Have we not made some improvement, in that the hon. Gentleman's constituents have an opportunity of consultation and are being consulted at the present time?

Mr. Moynihan: There is no doubt that opportunities for full consultation in such an exercise are essential. I give a categorical assurance to my hon. Friend that there will be the fullest and most comprehensive consultation exercise once Nirex has come forward with a proposal for the Government's consideration.

Dr. Cunningham: Does the Minister recall the unanimous report of the Select Committee on the subject of nuclear waste, which was chaired by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi)? It recommended that site—specific research was essential before any site could be properly indentified, let alone used? Does he recall that a great deal of waste is accumulating on the surface of the British Nuclear Fuels site at Sellafield and that the Labour-controlled Copeland borough council has made it clear to British Nuclear Fuels that the continuing proliferation of surface buildings to house intermediate-level waste is unacceptable to the council and the community? How can we ever develop a long-term strategy for the storage of intermediate-level nuclear waste if no research and discussions are allowed to get off the gound?

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman knows that in no way would it be right or proper for me to pre-empt what

Nirex will come forward with. All I can say is that I am certain that the consultation exercise that is under way will be rigorously looked at and that the proposals that come forward will take account of the sort of points raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Nirex

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of Nirex; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Moynihan: My right hon. Friend last met the chairman of Nirex on 22 October 1987. They discussed a number of matters relating to Nirex.

Mr. Jones: In view of the massive opposition to the quest by Nirex to identify potential sites for the disposal of low and intermediate-level nuclear waste, is not the consultation procedure now undertaken by Nirex doomed to failure? In view of the Government's stated aim of saving money, does the Minister not think that it would be far better to cancel that consultation procedure?

Mr. Moynihan: No, I do not. It is vital that Nirex should fully investigate the three options for a deep, dual-purpose disposal facility — deep burial on land, tunnelling under the sea from the shore and disposal into the sea bed from an offshore structure. It is vital that as many technical assessments as possible are made so that Nirex can give full and comprehensive answers to the Government as soon as possible.

Radio Broadcasting (Written Answer)

Mr. Roy Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It concerns the rights of the House and the Government's conduct of business in the House. Yesterday, the Home Secretary gave a written answer — No. 150—on the future of the BBC. In his answer he described what he was proposing as a "major change" in policy and went on to justify that claim with descriptions of the introduction of national commercial radio and deregulation of local radio. The significance of that announcement is obvious and clear, and I do not think that the House would argue about its importance.
This major statement — "major" by the Home Secretary's admission and description—was provided by means of a written answer which was available to hon. Members several hours after it was available to newspapers. I do not make a great point about the usual courtesies offered to the Opposition, but the Opposition's copy was delivered at 10 o'clock this morning, whereas the Press Gallery copy was available some time during the middle of yesterday afternoon. It is a denial of our proper rights if a statement of such major importance is issued by way of a contrived written answer when, according to all the standards of normal parliamentary procedure, the Home Secretary should have had the courage to make the statement in the House and subject himself to parliamentary inquiry and proper parliamentary scrutiny.
I make the point of order in the hope that two forms of progress will be possible. First, I hope that we will begin to consider guidelines by which there is a distinction between those subjects that can be announced by written answer and those that are so important that they must be the subject of ministerial statement. Secondly, I hope that, if that general rule cannot be pursued by you, Mr. Speaker, or some other authority, the Leader of the House—who has an obligation to us all, not just his own party—will tell the Home Secretary that a statement described by him as a "major change" in policy should not have been made by way of written answer and suggest that the Home Secretary remedy his mistake by offering a statement to the House so that we may comment on it.

Mr. Speaker: This matter was raised yesterday and I said then that the alternative would presumably have been a statement, which is not under my control. I can only say that, because there was no statement yesterday, about 25 Back Benchers were able to take part in the debate. However, a further 30 still failed to get in. I suppose that it is question of balance.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.
I am sure that the Leader of the House will have heard what has been said; but this is not remotely a matter of order for me.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am not taking the hon. Member.

Mr. Skinner: Later.

Mr. Speaker: Not even later.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have to consider your well-furnished duty of protecting hon. Members' rights as well as any technical aspect involved. I was sacked over this issue. I learned about the written answer only at half-past 10 last night. I would hope that, in the interests of hon. Members — quite apart from the technical courtesies of the House—you would make known your view on the conduct of major matters of policy such as this.
As we see it, the proposals represent the destruction of the public service concept of broadcasting, which has been the great jewel in the crown of Britain in the world for the past 60 years. They would mean the handing over of much of our broadcasting to potential monopolies such as those of Maxwell, Murdoch and Stevens in the public press. They would mean a lightly regulated broadcasting system in which the participants competed in trivia and would end any genuine diversity of programmes—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Gentleman because of his former direct interest in this matter.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking any more points of order.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a matter of order.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is.

Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter of order. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark brook (Mr. Hattersley) addressed his question not to me but to the Leader of the House and the Government.

Mr. Hattersley: rose—

Mr. Banks: It is a matter of order.

Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter of order. I am not in control of—

Mr. Banks: Let me raise it.

Mr. Speaker: No. I shall take the Front Bench spokesman. Mr. Hattersley.

Mr. Hattersley: I believed that I was making a genuine point of order for you, Sir, in asking you to protect the House from the Government's behaviour. However, I take your point and I have no wish to argue with you. You will recall that such points of order have often been used as an opportunity for the Leader of the House to respond. It is the right hon. Gentleman's duty to respond in some way. He knows that this is a genuine problem and that a major statement—the Government's own description—has not been made in the usual way and he owes it to us to say something, even though it may not be adequate.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I have heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said and I shall look into the matter. I believe that the Home Secretary acted entirely properly, but I remind the House that we have business questions tomorrow.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am not having a point of order on a point of order.

Hong Kong

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the White Paper on the Annual Report on Hong Kong 1987 (Cm. 293) and endorses the policies which the Government is pursuing to maintain Hong Kong's future prosperity and stability.
Her Majesty's Government and the Opposition both attach great importance to the subject of today's debate. It is both a product and a symbol of Parliament's commitment to Hong Kong. The Government's commit-ment to the publication of annual reports on the territory was itself a response to the wishes expressed in Hong Kong and taken up by hon. Members. The Government and Parliament alike are equally determined to fulfil our responsibilities to Hong Kong. Indeed, this House has already considered Hong Kong on a number of occasions since it endorsed overwhelmingly the signature of the joint declaration on Hong Kong's future. I have always been encouraged by the strength and quality of the interest shown on both sides of the House. We all seek a future for Hong Kong that will be in the best interests of the territory and its people.
Today, I want to concentrate on three separate themes: the implementation of the joint declaration; our consultation with Hong Kong and its people; and the issue of confidence. Britain and China are engaged in Hong Kong in a unique enterprise. We are creating conditions for the transfer of responsibility for an entire community, while preserving its present systems, human rights and lifestyle.
The relationship between the British and Chinese Governments is close and cordial. That is as it should be. It cannot be emphasised too strongly that that relationship is vitally important to the people of Hong Kong; but, at the same time, the success of the Hong Kong enterprise is critical to it. Hong Kong therefore lies at the heart of that relationship.
Throughout the complex process of negotiating the joint declaration, we bent all our energies to securing a good deal for Hong Kong. I believe we succeeded. Now we are working, with the same determination, for the full and faithful implementation of that joint declaration. The Chinese Government, I believe, have an equal commitment.
During the past year I have met my Chinese colleague, Foreign Minister Wu Xueqian, on three occasions and Hong Kong has been a major theme at each of those meetings. I look forward to continuing that discussion—as well as to considering other international and bilateral questions—when I welcome Mr. Wu Xuequian on an official visit to Britain in the spring.
The British and Chinese Governments have developed a pattern of close and pragmatic co-operation over the implementation of the joint declaration. We recognise the need for the utmost sensitivity to the circumstances of Hong Kong and the concerns of its people. Understandably, they look for reassurance. One important element of that reassurance is and will be a high degree of continuity in Hong Kong's institutions and systems of government across the change of sovereignty in 1997.
The watchwords for the future remain "prosperity and stability"; and stability requires institutional continuity.

That has been much in the minds of those who are working intensively together, for example, in the Joint Liaison Group and the Land Commission.
During the past year that work has resulted in further solid achievements: a series of agreements on Hong Kong's continued, separate participation in international organisations; agreement on further steps enabling Hong Kong to protect its own commercial interests before and after 1997; further steps in securing continuity over travel and identity documentation; and good progress in discussion on defence and public order.
At the same time, valuable work has been done on the drafting of the Basic Law. It is that Chinese law which will enshrine for post-1997 Hong Kong the constitutional provisions set out in the joint declaration. The drafting of the Basic Law is, of course, a matter for the Chinese Government, but, equally naturally, we are following the process with the greatest interest.
We welcome the extent to which China has sought to involve Hong Kong people in the drafting process. Almost half the members of the Basic Law drafting committee come from Hong Kong. The Basic Law consultative committee in the territory has a vital role in reflecting Hong Kong views. For our part, we have the right to satisfy ourselves that the eventual provisions of the Basic Law fully and accurately reflect the joint declaration.
Without our present constructive relationship with China, we could not have made such progress in implementing the joint declaration. I believe that that fact is widely understood in Hong Kong.
However, there are also certain misconceptions that should not be allowed to persist. One myth is that Britain seeks good relations with China at the expense of the interests of Hong Kong. Nothing could be further from the truth, and anyone who went, as I did, through the lengthy and strenuous negotiations with the Chinese which led to the joint declaration knows that is a grotesque distortion. There is no question of putting Hong Kong second: we have upheld and will uphold Hong Kong's interests to the full, not only because that is right, but because it would be an illusion to suppose that we could create good relations with China at the expense of the interests of Hong Kong.
All the evidence makes it plain that Hong Kong prospers when London and Peking are in harmony. The central fallacy is to suggest that there is a choice between the interests of Hong Kong and good relations between Britain and China. One cannot have one without the other. The single question that needs asking—it is important—is how to secure the firmest possible foundation for the future stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. It certainly cannot be founded on confrontation between Britain and China.
In Hong Kong, a lively and articulate community ensures that its concerns are heard. Successive governors have stood up for Hong Kong's interests most persuasively, both in London and in Peking.
The death of Sir Edward Youde at the end of 1986 was a tragic loss. The whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the wisdom and dedication that he showed in shaping Hong Kong's future, both as administrator and as my adviser during the negotiation of the joint declaration. His successor, Sir David Wilson, has brought to the office unparalleled experience; I am glad to say that that has been widely acknowledged. He is uniquely qualified to administer and champion the


interests of Hong Kong. He has my fullest confidence, and he has shown admirable steadiness and clarity of purpose during his first year in office.
The Government attach the highest importance to the process of consulting Hong Kong. There are close and intensive contacts between the British and Hong Kong Governments on all matters related to the implementation of the joint declaration. Officials of the Hong Kong Government play a full part in the work of the Joint Liaison Group.
Where consultation with Hong Kong people is concerned, one of the major events of the past year has been the review of developments in representative government. An earlier review took place in 1984. It resulted in important measures of reorganisation, including the introduction of 24 indirectly elected members into the Legislative Council. A commitment was made then to conduct a further round of public consultation in 1987. That commitment has been carried out in full.
The review is now nearing its end. A wide range of options was put forward for public debate, with none ruled out in advance. It has been scrupulously objective and impartial. Hong Kong people were encouraged to express their views, and their response has been on an unprecedented scale. An independent Survey Office has recorded the submissions made and views expressed by members of the community. Its report is comprehensive: no view, from whatever source, has been excluded. Two individuals of integrity and high standing in the community were appointed as independent monitors to oversee the work of the office. They have testified that the Survey Office recorded public views impartially and accurately.
The outcome of the review will be recorded in a White Paper, to be published by the Hong Kong Government next month. The House will understand that I cannot today anticipate details of the eventual decisions that will be announced. But I should like to explain some of the background.
In the first place, Her Majesty's Government and the Hong Kong Government alike wish to see the development towards more representative government in Hong Kong continue steadily. Neither we nor they would wish to impose any particular form or model. Hong Kong is unique in many ways, and it will need to develop its own system of government suited to its own requirements. Such a system should respect the wishes of the community as a whole and reflect Hong Kong's special circumstances and conditions, in the future as in the past.
We should acknowledge all the relevant factors: the range of views expressed by the community; the relevant provisions of the joint declaration; and the work now in hand to draft the Basic Law for post-1997 Hong Kong. We must ensure that any measures taken are accepted by the community as a whole and are consistent with the maintenance of stability.
Above all, we should remember that what we are building is not merely a temporary structure, but something which can and will endure in the years beyond 1997, and so carry Hong Kong forward into the 21st century. That is why our work must be set in the context of the establishment with China of arrangements for the future, and alongside the drafting of the Basic Law. There

is nothing new about this. Throughout Hong Kong's existence, its identity has evolved in light of a clear realisation of its unique historical, geographical and international circumstances. It is against that background that we must work to preserve it.
The Hong Kong Government's Green Paper covered a wide range of issues, but, as the House will of course be aware, the main focus of public debate has been the question whether a directly elected element should be introduced into the Legislative Council, and, if so, when. This issue was the subject of the great majority of submissions to the Survey Office. It also dominated debate in the Legislative Council and other forums.
The Survey Office report shows that the bulk of the views expressed have been in favour of the principle of introducing some directly elected members into the Legislative Council. Of course, many people did not express any view. None the less, I think that it would be accurate to speak of a strong trend in public opinion that supports taking that step well before 1997.
On the question of timing, the report shows opinion to be sharply divided. Some people believe that direct elections should be introduced this year, when elections to the Legislative Council are due. Others have reservations about moving forward so quickly. They argue instead for introduction at a later date, with some suggesting that the subsequent round of elections in 1991 could provide the most appropriate opportunity.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: While I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is reflecting what is common parlance in Hong Kong, is it not correct to say that representations were received from only 137,000 people out of a population of 5·25 million? I hope that the Government will bear in mind that very few Chinese with residential qualifications are used to a democratic Government. That should be taken into account.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is why the survey report is only one of the factors that have to be taken into account. The report encompasses representations, discussions and debates of many kinds in all the representative bodies. That is why the question is not susceptible of a single, simple analysis. The division about which I have spoken has been reflected in debate, sometimes heated, at every level from the Legislative Council down. The most deftly argued views are not always the most important, and the most strident are not always the most representative, or the most likely to achieve the desired result.
I have spoken of the need for continuity. In the preliminary draft of the Basic Law, recently released by the Basic Law drafting committee, all the options for the composition of the legislature provide for a directly elected element. That is very welcome in Hong Kong and is one of the considerations that should guide us in reaching our conclusions. The views expressed by Hong Kong people help to establish the parameters within which we should plan to move ahead on a steady and prudent course acceptable to the community as a whole. Certainly we have noted the general feeling in Hong Kong that the White Paper should contain a clear statement on when it is intended that direct elections should be introduced. I understand the widely expressed wish that the White Paper should bring an end to uncertainty.
In view of the short time that is available for the debate, I should like to give other hon. Members as much time as


possible to speak. However, I cannot exclude from my opening remarks a few words about the position in Hong Kong of the so-called boat people from Vietnam. On that topic as on any other, I shall be ready in winding up to address specific concerns raised by hon. Members.
I am acutely conscious of the concern felt in Hong Kong about the problem of the boat people. We are doing all we possibly can to relieve Hong Kong of this burden. We have accepted a further quota for resettlement in the United Kingdom, and we are urging other countries to follow suit. We are also discussing with all those concerned how those Vietnamese not qualifying as refugees might be returned to Vietnam against suitable assurances about their treatment. None of these matters is easy to discuss or to carry forward. It will be a long haul, but I assure the House and the people in Hong Kong that we shall persist in trying to find a way forward to solve this problem. In all that we do for Hong Kong, our overriding concern is to sustain confidence in the future.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Would it not be advisable to make a very strong reservation in terms of the comments that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was making a moment or two ago, that there will of course be no compulsory repatriation to Vietnam while the unhappy circumstances in Vietnam still prevail?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the force of the hon. Gentleman's point. That is why I said that, when we were making representations and inquiries, suitable assurances about the treatment of anyone who might return to Vietnam were absolutely essential.
We are trying to reconcile two or three almost irreconcilable factors. It is plainly necessary to reduce the numbers in camps in Hong Kong; but there is clearly a limit to the places that can be found for them elsewhere. The third channel must certainly be sought: an acceptable way of returning them to their land. The hon. Gentleman is right to remind the House of the difficulties.

Mr. Churchill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the past five years, while there have been closed camps in Hong Kong and on the islands, not one of the refugees — not a single family, although some have been behind barbed wire for more than five years —has asked to be repatriated to Vietnam? Will he take that into account? Furthermore, will Her Majesty's Government redouble their efforts to persuade other Governments to accept refugees for resettlement?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right: he directs his focus to the other components. I have taken up that point in virtually every meeting that I have had with any other Government who could possibly be a candidate to receive refugees. I do not think that my hon. Friend is right to say that not one refugee has sought repatriation; I am sure that some have tried to return to Vietnam. He is, however, right to say that the numbers have been very small. —[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) says, an underlying feature is the achievement of more balanced policies in Vietnam. That would make it a more acceptable home to return to.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Where was the right hon. and learned Gentleman when the Americans bombed Vietnam?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall halt my digression rather than be distracted by that sedentary intervention.
Let me reiterate that our overriding concern is to sustain confidence in the future, both in the territory of Hong Kong and in the wider internal community. Of course there are uncertainties, but I believe that they should be seen in perspective.
Hong Kong people have always been highly mobile: there is a strong tradition of travel overseas for education or training. Recently there has been some increase in emigration. Uncertainty about the future may well be a factor in that, although it is by no means the only one. Moreover, many Hong Kong people, having acquired a foreign nationality or residence qualification, choose to return to Hong Kong. They are attracted back by the lifestyle, the rewards and the sense of identification with the community there. We and the Hong Kong Government will do our utmost to ensure that all those attractions remain.
The House is, of course, well aware of the problems recently connected with the Hong Kong stock and futures exchange. Hong Kong exchanges were not spared the effects of the worldwide downturn in stock markets. But the Hong Kong Government moved decisively to coordinate financial support—to which, I am pleased to note, the Chinese authorities made a significant contribution. They have also set in hand action to tackle the longer-term problems connected with supervision and operation of the exchanges.
Equally firm action has been taken more recently to ensure that allegations about the conduct of certain individual office-holders of the stock exchange can be pursued, without affecting the smooth operation of the exchange. The Hong Kong Government are determined that the territory's position and reputation as a major international financial centre should be safeguarded.
The problems that emerge are being tackled decisively. On the credit side, we have much cause for encouragement. There is the joint declaration itself, and the detail and certainty embodied in that legally binding international treaty; there is China's commitment to work closely with us over the implementation of the joint declaration; and there is the efficiency and drive of the local administration, creating conditions in which enterprise can flourish.
We are encouraged, finally, by the exceptionally strong performance of the local economy: a growth rate for 1987 of over 12 per cent., bringing the 20-year average to almost 8 per cent. per annum; an increase in domestic exports of 26 per cent. over the year; virtually full employment; and a strong property market and high levels of investment. Few economies in the world could match that record. None of it suggests a lack of confidence in Hong Kong's prospects on the part of those who trade and invest there.
The Hong Kong Government are planning purposefully for the territory's future. Ambitious projects are in hand to take the territory into the next century. The quality of life is being steadily improved. Opportunities for the next generation are being opened up.
The transitional years up to the change of sovereignty in 1997 are bound to bring uncertainties, but Hong Kong has shown an admirable ability to adapt to change. It is sustained by the resilience and dynamism of its people. It is sustained, too, by the good will of the British and Chinese Governments and their joint commitment to the successful implementation of the joint declaration. I am confident that all these advantages will keep Hong Kong steady on its course.
It is the solemn responsibility of the British Government to administer Hong Kong up to 30 June 1997 in the best interests of its people. We shall discharge that responsibility to the utmost of our abilities.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I join the Foreign Secretary in paying tribute to the late Sir Edward Youde. I knew Sir Edward well and worked closely with him for a time. I was well aware of his many qualities and, of course, of his heroic past. It is right that we should remember him now.
The Opposition are grateful to the Government for agreeing to the Labour party's request for a debate on the annual report. We are grateful for the annual report itself. The useful availability of these reports seems somewhat at odds with the adamant rejection by the Foreign Secretary almost three years ago today—it was 21 January 1985—of requests by my right hon. and hon. Friends for annual reports on progress in Hong Kong following the agreement of 1984.
Hansard for 21 January 1985 is littered with categorical rejections of the need and scope for such reports and the damage that they might inflict. The Foreign Secretary said:
Such reports tend to be a repetition of previous reports in form … Although designed with the best intentions, they often have the opposite effect of that intended … My, instinctive reaction to the annualisation of reports is to regard that practice as often diminishing the importance and value of the reports.
He said with enormous vehemence:
one can become depressed by the wearisome familiarity of the structure of annual reports. They can fall into an annual rhythm, even when the scene is changing as rapidly as it is in Hong Kong. I am anxious not to condemn the reality of the subject to being encapsulated in a wearisome annual framework."—[Official Report, 21 January 1985; Vol. 71, c. 734 and 745.]
I am pleased that the right hon. and learned Gentleman repented of that view, because I think that the whole House will agree that the series of annual reports is of great value to the House and the people of Hong Kong. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's change of mind is a forerunner of even more valuable mind changes on this and other matters.
The report contains much encouraging information. We congratulate the Joint Liaison Group on the agreed involvement of the Hong Kong special administrative region, as it will become in 1997, in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade the multi-fibre arrangement, the Customs Co-operation Council and the Food and Agriculture Organisation. We are sure that, as a member of the International Labour Organisation, Hong Kong China will pursue more enlightened employment policies than do the present British Government.
We are pleased to learn of the air service agreement with the Netherlands and of the anticipated air service agreement with Switzerland. All this makes encouraging progress in the evolution of the unique experiment on which the Chinese People's Republic has agreed to embark with such breadth of mind and vision.
We greatly applaud other aspects of the report. In particular, we congratulate the Hong Kong housing authority on its plans in the coming financial year to complete a record 52,000 public housing units. That

52,000 in Hong Kong contrasts with an estimated 24,000 to 25,000 public sector completions in this country next year. Hong Kong, with one tenth of Britain's population, is building twice as many public sector homes as the Government are permitting.
This remarkable achievement would be matched in Britain by 500,000 new council houses which, heaven knows, we badly need. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary could persuade the Secretary of State for the Environment to take a trip to Hong Kong and, no, not to stay there — that would be most unfair on our friends in Hong Kong; warlords are completely out of fashion in China — but to learn much-needed lessons about public provision for public need.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is far too sophisticated to put such an argument to the House. Does he not realise that Hong Kong has absorbed a very large number of refugees from mainland China who are utterly homeless? Conditions in Hong Kong are entirely different from those in Great Britain.

Mr. Kaufman: I accept that absolutely. I believe that Hong Kong has serious difficulties which I would not dismiss or underestimate for a moment, but we have serious difficulties, too. We also have a large number of homeless people who would benefit from such an admirable public sector housing programme as that in which Hong Kong is participating.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for what he has said about the boat people. I acknowledge, as he did, the great difficulty of the problem. It is far from straightforward and a solution is not easy to find. We are ready to meet the Foreign Secretary and discuss with him, in a non-partisan way, potential ways in which the problem can be dealt with in an attempt to find a satisfactory outcome for those unhappy people.
As the Foreign Secretary has acknowledged, the debate is especially important as it comes just in advance of the White Paper which is due for publication next month. I very much hope that it is not a cut and dried document that is ready for the printer. I hope that what is being said today will have an effect on its content. If not, the debate is an empty charade and goes against the spirit in which the Government and the Opposition have approached this important issue.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary still has an open mind about direct elections. I thought that the intervention of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) was curious. He drew attention to what he claimed was a small number of submissions by the people of Hong Kong on this issue. There were 125,833 submissions. I should have thought that if the Government, who preside over a country with 10 times the population of Hong Kong, had received 125,000 submissions on one item of policy, they would acknowledge that there was serious concern in the country about it. I cannot understand how such a remarkable manifestation of concern can be dismissed, apparently, as trivial.
As the Foreign Secretary has said, it is not in doubt that elections will play a part in the composition of the Legislative Council after 1 July 1997. Annex 1 of the 1984 agreement — the elaboration, as it is called, by the Government of the People's Republic of China on its basic policies regarding Hong Kong—states unequivocally:


The Legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be constituted by elections.
We welcome the clarity and forthrightness of that pledge. In his statement of 25 October 1984, the Foreign Secretary confirmed that commitment when he said:
The agreement provides for the Legislature of Hong Kong in the future to he on an elective basis".
In response to questions, he said:
the legislature … must be developed and established, after proper consideration, on a due time scale." —[Official Report, 25 October 1984; Vol. 65, c. 822 and 826.]
I must confess that it is not immediately apparent to me what those words are supposed to mean. That phraseology may be a characteristic example of the Foreign Secretary's occidental inscrutability. However, I take it that that was a circumlocutory way of saying that the Foreign Secretary was keeping his options open. I say "his options" because, as he properly said this afternoon, although the Chinese Government naturally have a legitimate and important interest in that fundamental decision, it is a decision for Her Majesty's Government alone as they have sole responsibility for the administration of Hong Kong until 30 June 1997.
The question therefore is not whether there should be direct elections for the Hong Kong Legislative Council, but when and for what proportion of those seats the election should take place. The Chinese make no bones about that. A most formidable and brilliant representative of the Chinese embassy addressed a meeting of my right hon. and hon. Friends earlier this week. She categorically committed the People's Republic of China to direct elections for Hong Kong. She acknowledged that an overwhelming majority of the people in Hong Kong are in favour of direct elections. Those of us who listened to her welcomed the sincerity of that statement as well as the consummate skill with which the Chinese approach was described. We were also told that, while naturally China had the right to its own point of view about timing and proportions, the People's Republic of China is not opposed to direct elections before 1997.
I acknowledge immediately that the question of when direct elections should start is not straightforward or simple. One argument is that no action should be taken that would pre-empt the Basic Law for Hong Kong which, as the Foreign Secretary said, is now in preparation by the Chinese Government. The first draft of that Basic Law will be made public in April. It will be subject to five months of consultation and revised in the light of that consultation. It will then be made available in its revised form for additional calculation. It is due to be ratified by the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China for publication in 1990. That is a powerful argument and it could weight the balance against action in direct elections in advance of 1997 which would pre-empt the contents of the Basic Law, which is solely a matter for China.
I could have been strongly influenced in favour of a delay in holding direct elections until 1991 after the Basic Law has been passed were it not for the clear statement from the Chinese that they are in favour of direct elections. In those circumstances, it is not the principle of direct elections and whether direct elections are acceptable to the People's Republic of China which is in question. The People's Republic of China has clearly accepted the principle. However, the timing and the modalities of such elections are in question. That being so, I believe that the arguments for starting with some proportion of direct

elections this year are compelling. I trust that the Foreign Secretary will take those arguments into account when considering the final contents of next month's White Paper.
It is unquestionable that, if direct elections are delayed until after the handover in 1997, they will not come about immediately. Preparations will have to be made and the next scheduled year for a change in the composition of the Legislative Council after 1997 is the year 2000. That would mean that even a start on the basic experience of elections and the practices and conduct of elected members could not be made until into the new century. If a start at that point were to be made with 25 per cent., as seems to he the accepted proportion for a start, progress towards a 100 per cent. elected Legislative Council might not be achieved until well into the 50-year period guaranteed to the Hong Kong special administrative region.
There are no arguments in favour of waiting until the changeover, and the People's Republic of China has never said that it wants to wait until the changeover. The question arises whether the direct elections should start before or after the Basic Law is approved in 1990. One important point is that time is already passing. A quarter of the time between the signing of the agreement in 1984 and the handover in 1997 has already elapsed. If we wait until 1991 for the introduction of some proportion of direct elections, more than half of the time between the signature of the agreement and the handover will have elapsed. There will not be much time for the new system to be assimilated and for experience to be gained of how elections are conducted and how elected members should employ their opportunities and status.
I believe that there is an even more important point. In their great wisdom the Chinese Government are providing two opportunities for public consultation in Hong Kong about the contents and provisions of the Basic Law that is being drafted. It must be said that in present circumstances reactions to that Basic Law will not be available from persons who are clearly seen to be representative of the people of Hong Kong. No doubt distinguished and knowledgeable persons will state their views and those will be important. Possibly efforts will be made to guage the views of the people of Hong Kong as a whole, perhaps through the use of opinion polls, which have already been employed. However, the views of distinguished and knowledgeable people will be individual views and the findings of opinion polls are always open to challenge and interpretation, as indeed have been the findings of the polls seeking the views of the people of Hong Kong on the question of direct elections.
It would be invaluable for the Chinese Government to have people available for consultation who are clearly seen to be the properly elected representatives of the people of Hong Kong. The availability, of such elected representatives would be most helpful in securing clear acceptance of the Basic Law by the people of Hong Kong. I am sure that that is in the interests of the Chinese Government in this remarkable experiment on which they are so courageously embarking.

Mr. David Howell: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is correct to be concerned about the development of representative and robust government in Hong Kong, and that concern is shared by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the Beijing Government. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that


there is a danger in putting too much weight on 1988 as the starting point because, if that weight is too great, it will create undue anxieties in Hong Kong that will undermine all the work that lies ahead and the progress that has already been achieved? Will the right hon. Gentleman use his considerable influence to try to allay some of those fears?

Mr. Kaufman: That is the last thing that I want to see. The problem is that there is already a great deal of concern. It is impossible to say how representative is that concern, but there is no doubt that it exists. I have tried to balance the arguments for a start on direct elections before the drafting of the Basic Law and after its passage. After careful consideration, my conclusion is that the arguments are considerably weighted towards a start before the Basic Law is agreed. I will consider other arguments in a moment in response to the important point raised by the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). However, I have long been wary of the arguments in favour of what the late Hugh Dalton used to call the doctrine of unripe time. Arguments can always be advanced to state that some proposed change or advance is desirable, but the time is not ripe.
The problem is that we are under two time limits. First, we are under the time limit of the handover. Although the period of guarantee of the special administrative region is lengthy, it is clearly a limited period. Secondly, it is necessary for Hong Kong to have experience of a 25 per cent. elected Legislative Council and of a 100 per cent. elected Legislative Council early in that period.
The sooner that direct election begins, the earlier will be the experience of working representative structures and the greater the chances of sorting out any problems which may arise in direct election and direct representation, to which the people of Hong Kong are not used on a territory-wide scale. A start in direct elections this year would of course place a great responsibility on the people of Hong Kong to demonstrate their capability to conduct free elections in a responsible manner.
I am confident that the sophisticated people of that territory are more than equal to that challenge, and that their ability to meet it will be of assistance in the growth of their relationship with the country of which they will soon become an autonomous region. I believe that they will seize the opportunity to prove to China that the system can work. I am sure that the people of Hong Kong want the system to work — their whole future depends upon it — and the major change that the Chinese are proposing to be of benefit to them so that it can continue beyond the 50-year period.

Mr. Robert Adley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House will accept that this must be the last intervention that I will take, as so many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak in a short debate.

Mr. Adley: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that the Labour party had received a representative from the Chinese embassy. We all know that the Chinese are in favour of direct elections, but was she in favour of them before 1991? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it

will not help the people of Hong Kong if they are encouraged to take decisions which are clearly contrary to the views of the Chinese Government?

Mr. Kaufman: That formidable and remarkable lady was careful to express no view on that matter. In my view, she was sensible not to do so. Clearly, it is not in the interests of the people of Hong Kong for action to be taken during the remaining period of British administration that will be unwelcome to the People's Republic of China. At the same time, with all respect to the People's Republic of China, Britain and the House are administering Hong Kong and will administer it until 30 June 1997. It is our responsibility to take decisions which we regard as proper for Hong Kong, of course taking into account the important considerations mentioned by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley).
The issue will not go away. There is an appetite for direct elections in Hong Kong that is acknowledged in every statement made on the subject, including those statements made by the Chinese Government. Reluctant though I am to say it, I have to say that until a specific commitment as to date and proportion of those to be elected is given, it is a question that will bedevil the preparations for the handover and could overshadow the important discussion that China is laudably seeking over the contents of the draft Basic Law.
I do not believe that direct elections are the only important issue at stake in the next few years for Hong Kong. It would be a pity if preoccupation with direct elections were to dominate and distort discussion of all the other issues which need to be considered and settled.
Therefore, I put it to the Foreign Secretary that the arguments strongly predominate in favour of an announcement in the White Paper next month that direct elections for some of the Legislative Council seats should take place later this year. Indeed, faced with a choice between 25 per cent. in 1991 and 12·5 per cent. this year, I would strongly recommend 12·5 per cent. this year, even though my own preference, like that of many in Hong Kong, would be for 25 per cent. this year.
My discussions with people from Hong Kong show that there is a great readiness there to co-operate with China in the fundamental changes that are to come, and to demonstrate that readiness to China. Direct elections this year would assist in that co-operation and that demonstration. The Foreign Secretary said on 21 January 1985:
The process of consultation …will be further assisted by the progressive strengthening of representative Government in Hong Kong over the next 10 years." —[Official Report, 21 January 1985; Vol. 71, c. 741.]
Consultation on the basic law starts in April. Strengthening of representative government should start in this year, too.
There is intense interest in this debate in Hong Kong. Although it is now after midnight there, this debate is being broadcast live in the territory, and is being listened to by a large number of concerned people. Let the Government give them the commitment that so many are looking for.
In its decision to set up a special administrative region in Hong Kong, the People's Republic of China has taken one of the most visionary steps that any Government have ever taken. It deserves credit and admiration for its openness of mind and its readiness to innovate. The House has a duty to assist the People's Republic of China in that


great enterprise, and to maintain its proper vigilance on behalf of the people of Hong Kong for whom we remain responsible. It is in that spirit that the Opposition approach the debate.

Mr. Edward Heath: I am grateful for the opportunity briefly to intervene in this important debate. Unfortunately, I was unavoidably prevented from hearing the first part of the Foreign Secretary's speech in which he paid tribute to Sir Edward Youde. I join him in that, as I knew Sir Edward Youde when he was ambassador in Beijing. He was our second ambassador there after we assumed complete diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, and he carried out an expert job in having working relationships with Mao Tse-Tung, Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping.
When Sir Edward came to Hong Kong, he had a formidable task in following Lord MacLehose who had been governor there for 11 years and was immensely admired and respected, and had performed remarkable feats as governor of Hong Kong. However, Sir Edward assumed that task willingly and with great skill, in his own style, which was different from that of Lord MacLehose. His death was a tragedy and we should pay tribute to him for his achievements in Beijing and Hong Kong.
Before I come to the main question about elections, I wish to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in saying a few words about the boat people. We must face the fact that that situation cannot continue. Those of us who have seen the camps are convinced that the Government of Hong Kong are doing absolutely everything possible to make them tolerable, but year after year children are growing up confined to those camps. That situation cannot be maintained. As we shall be responsible for Hong Kong for another nine years, we cannot allow a situation to continue in which so many young lives—they will soon become youths capable of work — are confined in camps. We cannot respectably hand over Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China with people kept in such conditions.
I do not believe that the People's Republic of China would allow such a situation to continue. Therefore, I urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, who has a compassionate nature, to recognise that year after year human lives are continuing, and young people are growing up in a situation which—however much the Hong Kong Government do—is intolerable.
I do not believe that it is impossible for Hong Kong to assimilate the numbers that are involved. A colony of 5 million people could absorb such a number; it is perfectly possible if it is handled properly. Britain certainly could take more people than it has already taken. Voices will always shout against that, but a country of 50 million people must be able to absorb more than we have been prepared to accept so far.
After all, when my Government — of which the Foreign Secretary was a member—faced problems with Uganda, we were able to absorb 25,000 Ugandan Asians in 10 days. They have proved themselves to be admirable working people. They have created their own private enterprises and have been immensely successful. I am not in a position to make a comparison between those people and the Vietnamese, but I am quite convinced that Hong

Kong could handle the problem once the Governments of this country and Hong Kong made up their minds to do so.
The major point of the discussion today is elections. When we debated this matter on 5 December 1984, 1 congratulated my right hon. and learned Friend on the agreement that had been reached. I summed up my position by saying:
Far greater than any danger of haste is the danger of not having fully representative working government with experience by the time the handover takes place." —[Official Report, 5 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 405.]
That is still my view. There is a much greater danger of our dragging our feet than of being over-hasty.
For the remaining period before the handover, the all-important thing for Her Majesty's Government to consider is that we are still the Government of Hong Kong and that we have accepted our full responsibilities, placed upon us, with the full agreement of the People's Republic of China, for all the activities and particularly for the government of Hong Kong, until 1997. If we are to do that, we must show all the time that we are not only managing the affairs properly, but dealing with the problems that arise. There is no point in trying to hide the problems of Hong Kong, because everybody there knows about them only too well. There are problems with the stock exchange and scandals that have taken place in industry, commerce and within other activities in Hong Kong. They must be dealt with quickly and firmly if we are to demonstrate that we are still carrying out our responsibilities.
If we are to maintain the confidence of the people of Hong Kong we must show that we are still running the show properly. We cannot afford to let it gradually slip. If we do so—there is some evidence to suggest that people believe that that is already happening — the financial, commercial and industrial interests of Hong Kong will rapidly reach the conclusion that we will not carry out our part of the agreement reached between ourselves and the People's Republic of China. If they reach that conclusion, the prosperity of Hong Kong will fade away. That will be the test of whether we properly carry out our responsibilities under the agreement.
One of the questions open to discussion is that of elections. We should be able to hand over Hong Kong with a system of representative government. My right hon. and learned Friend has said that Hong Kong should develop its own system, and I entirely agree. However, it must be a system of representative government, and unless action is taken quickly now we shall be unable to hand over any form of experienced, representative government. I made that observation three years ago and now we have less than nine years left. As Members of this House, we know how long it takes to acquire the experience within the House to enable us to achieve anything individually within our parties or in government.
In Hong Kong the operation of a full system of government must be achieved in a short period of time and it is rapidly getting shorter and shorter. When my right hon. and learned Friend is considering the White Paper he must take that fact into account. The People's Republic of China accepted that a system of representative government would be established and it is committed to the continuation of that system for 50 years after the handover. Therefore, what we hand over is of vital


importance. That lends emphasis to the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend should be prepared to take action, but in what direction?
Obviously, when a new constitution is being devised it would be wise to ensure that any action taken now should not be in conflict with it. I fully accept that. However, do we need to do anything that is in conflict with that constitution? I believe that the answer to that question is no.
The first option for consideration is extending the functional system of government in Hong Kong with internal elections, and that is fully acceptable to the People's Republic of China. Those who are considering constitutional developments within the People's Republic of China at the moment are undoubtedly thinking along those lines. However, they face enormous difficulties. When they talk about opening up China or its liberalisation they are talking about the economic development of the country and they are determined on that. However, when it comes to the liberalisation of political activities the attitude is different.
It is genuinely believed that, with more than 1 billion people, the country is not sufficiently developed or experienced to carry on an effective system of government. One can understand that. A crucial point will be reached — as we have seen in other countries — because with economic development and liberalisation there inevitably follows a demand for political liberalisation. That always represents the crux for any country that is trying to develop its economy and political institutions.
We could increase what I term the functional representation in Hong Kong at this moment and that would be carrying the territory in the direction that would be followed by the People's Republic of China. Secondly, I understand that there are options contained in the basic constitution, as presently shaped, that concern 25 per cent., 30 per cent. and 50 per cent. of the Legislative Council seats for election. If those options are already within the proposed Basic Law and are accepted by the People's Republic of China, I do not believe that we would be in conflict with the constitution if we moved on that path between now and when the Basic Law is accepted. If we were certain that the Basic Law would be effected in a year's time all would be well, but, as we know, such matters tend to drag on and on. It may well be 1991 or 1992 before the matter is settled. In that case, the time left before the handover would be even shorter—one could count the years on the fingers of one hand.
If such options were taken up, I do not believe that we would be pursuing a path that would be in conflict with the forthcoming constitution to be agreed between the People's Republic of China and Her Majesty's Government. If I am wrong, no doubt my right hon. and learned Friend will correct me in due course. If we are not in conflict, I believe that it is possible to advance. Therefore, there are two options available to us by which we can help to develop representative government in Hong Kong. We would then be able to hand the territory over in 1997 with a system that could continue, without further controversy, for the remaining 50 years to which the People's Republic of China will be committed.
When my right hon. and learned Friend is considering the White Paper, which is the importance of today's debate, he should recognise that, from the point of view

of governmental experience, it is urgently necessary to develop a system of representative government in Hong Kong. Such a development would not be in conflict with the new constitution.
Therefore, it should be possible for us to advance along such a path without the People's Republic of China claiming that we are in any way infringing the undertakings that we have given. If we follow that path it will not be possible for the people of Hong Kong or any of our other friends to say that we are not carrying out the responsibilities that we have undertaken. If we do not infringe our undertakings or fail our responsibilities, it will be the best position for our Government.
The practical way in which the people of Hong Kong will respond to elections is a matter to be considered. I was not quite certain whether my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) was saying that 135,000 people represented a small or large number or whether it meant that people wanted elections or not. I do not mind which way my hon. Friend interprets it, because, when it comes to the point, it is up to the people to decide whether they wish to vote in elections. My own judgment is that the people of Hong Kong—the greater part of the 5 million inhabitants—are mainly concerned with getting on with their own business, which they do extremely well. That does not mean to say that they should not have representative government, especially when we have given such an undertaking.
My hon. Friend and I may agree—probably for the first time, but I hope not for the last—that the people of Hong Kong can carry on doing their own business and continue to be successful. However, progressively, there will be opportunities for those who want to vote in elections and form their own Government. We shall then hand over in 1997 not only a very successful Hong Kong, commercially and industrially, but one which is satisfied with its form of representative government which can then continue for 50 years until further changes come under the People's Republic of China.

Mr. John Morris: The whole House will have listened closely to the words of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), drawing on his long experience. They were wise words on the need for direct elections and the fact that that would not be incompatible, as he understands it, with the Basic Law so far proposed.
On my last visit to Hong Kong as shadow Attorney-General, in the course of discussions with the legal community I gave an assurance that whenever an issue arose regarding freedom, the law or the constitution, I would be prepared to act as a conduit pipe if they had exhausted all the existing machinery. Over the years there have been occasions when one has had to go to Ministers because of anxieties expressed in Hong Kong.
Let me give one example — the public outcry regarding section 27 of the Public Order Ordinance enacted last March, which makes it a crime to publish false news. If that were a crime in the United Kingdom, the Home Secretary would have to build prisons for editors, sub-editors and the like. That law has caused great anxiety, especially as regards the freedom of the press and free speech.
I understand that there is now a film censorship Bill, for political reasons, mainly the likelihood of seriously


damaging good relations with other territories. Freedom and censorship, particularly political censorship, are never compatible — a lesson forgotten perhaps by Her Majesty's Government in their litigious rampage through the courts of the world.
Whenever one goes to Ministers the answer is always the same—this is a matter for Hong Kong. If Hong Kong had a democratically elected Government that would be right, but when one hears of these aberrations which are contrary to our understanding of freedom, we cannot, like Pontius Pilate, wash our hands of what is going on there.
I come immediately to the issue raised by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. I believe, from the representations that we have had, that there is more than the beginning of a crisis of confidence in Hong Kong regarding progress on the road to direct elections. Informed opinion in Hong Kong, if we are to judge by the representations that we have had, is that they have been shaken by the timidity of the Government in grasping the nettle on how far and how quickly representative government is to be achieved.
The Foreign Secretary has not carried the matter one iota further. We do not know in what way Her Majesty's Government will encourage speed in moving towards a democratically elected government. Sophisticated Hong Kong, with a long tradition in the business world, perhaps will be unique as the only colony where we have not begun to move towards a democratically elected government when we hand it over. That is an odd reflection on the people of Hong Kong.

Mr. Adley: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman not slightly misunderstood the history of Hong Kong? Is not the real reason why we never introduced any fundamentally democratic institutions in Hong Kong that, whatever the paper reality, the political reality was that no governor of Hong Kong for the last 150 years dared do anything along those lines that would fly in the face of the wishes of whoever happened to be governing China at the time? Is that not the reason why nothing was done?

Mr. Morris: Let us get away from the past. What is important now is the sophistication of business leadership and many other forms of leadership in Hong Kong. There are two great universities, with a third planned. It is unique that we have hardly moved along the road to democratic government. It is the only one of our colonies where we have not done so. The Government may assert on a technicality that there has been no breach of promise in not having direct elections in 1988, but it is only a technical defence and, like most technical defences, it lacks all merit.
Anyone who has read the excellent memorandum prepared by Mr. Martin Lee and his colleagues cannot fail to be impressed by the case that they have presented. Their analysis of the expectation in Hong Kong provides a sound prima facie case for elections now. It was Jim Griffiths, a distinguished Colonial Secretary and a compatriot of mine, who said on more than one occasion that half the battle was to begin. He had long experience of administering our colonies.
The expectation is based on the repeated promises of the Government, culminating in the Prime Minister's own words in December 1984:
We shall honour our obligations to the full … Long before 1997 we will have steadily and securely moved to increase the amount of representation of local people in the Government of Hong Kong.

Earlier, both the Foreign Secretary and the governor had said that representative government would be developed
in the years immediately ahead".
I emphasise the word "immediately".
As that was promised in 1984, how can there have been no progress by 1988? The sands of time are running out. Hong Kong needs experienced leaders to play their full part in the colony's affairs. Since the term of office of the Legislative Council is three years, it is difficult to see how a representative legislature can be established well before 1997 if a start is not made in 1988 on at least a small number of seats. If this opportunity is missed we shall chearly be in 1991 before a start can be made, and there will be only six years left.
May I ask three questions of the Foreign Secretary? First, are the Government aware of the extent of the anxiety of informed opinion in Hong Kong? Secondly—perhaps the Foreign Secretary will draw back the veil on the White Paper — how do the Government see representative government developing between now and 1997? Thirdly, will the Foreign Secretary endorse the assertion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that there is no tardiness on the part of the Chinese in going along with a start being made in 1988?
China has said that the Basic Law would represent the wishes of the people of Hong Kong. The letter and spirit of the agreement provide that the legislature of the Hong Kong special administrative region shall be constitutionally elected. The first step should be taken now. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup is right. It takes years for people to acquire the know-how to work the machinery of government and, indeed, the machinery of this House. Time is running out. If nothing is done by 1991 we shall have lost the advantage of seven years. They will have been seven very lean years indeed in making progress on the matter.
I quote the words of Sir Jack Cater, the chief secretary of Hong Kong until 1981, reported in The Independent this morning. He said:
Too little is made of the fact that we have so very little time. All that would be achieved by not introducing direct elections now would be to make [1997] that much more difficult. Hong Kong would not be getting the experience which it obviously needs. We should be treated as an adult society. If this is what we want, there has to he an extraordinarily good reason for not giving it to us.
Those are the words of a very experienced administrator in Hong Kong. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will tell us why a start cannot be made in 1988, or must three more years be lost before 1991?

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I and two of my hon. Friends had the good fortune to be invited by the Hong Kong Government to spend 10 days in the territory in September. We had a most interesting time, met very many people and were looked after most hospitably. At the time, the leading subject was the Green Paper and the survey was being assessed.
I intervened in the Foreign Secretary's speech and both the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) questioned the point that I was trying to make. It is a very simple point: the survey, although producing the views of 135,000 people, did not produce the views of 5·25 million people. From my


discussions with very many people, I am certain that there is a substantial body of opinion that says either, "I do not know," or, "I do not care," or simply prefers a system in which elected government plays a very small part. I was delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary responded to my intervention by saying that those who make the most noise on this subject by no means necessarily have the most influence or carry the greatest weight of support in the territory.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: The hon. Gentleman referred to a survey. There have been several surveys and opinion polls to measure public opinion in Hong Kong on this matter. Recent surveys show that the majority of people favour direct elections. There may be a division of opinion about the timing of elections, but the most popular date for the introduction of direct elections in all the recent surveys is 1988.

Mr. Wiggin: I disagree with that. The survey to which I referred is the public response to the Green Paper, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has read. With all statistics, it is possible to come to whatever conclusion one might choose. Mr. Martin Lee comes to a very different view.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: My hon. Friend sets much store by that survey, but will he confirm that the key question about the 1988 direct elections was muddled and has been widely discredited by people who know about surveys? Will he also confirm that the reason why so many people expressed no view is that 40 per cent. of the people asked could not understand the question? Does he agree that, if he were asked that question before or after breakfast, he would not understand it any more than I would?

Mr. Wiggin: I shall not dispute with my hon. Friend what is the best time of day to ask me intellectual questions.
This debate has been raging in the territory and it is natural that it should be reflected in our debate. I do not share my hon. Friend's view on this matter. The vast majority of people are far less interested in voting for their representatives than we might like to think. We have made the mistake in many countries of imagining that the Westminster system, and all that goes with it, transfers easily and that it is for the benefit of the people concerned. I question that, and believe that history would be on my side.
I intend to speak only for a few moments, but there is one point that deeply impressed me during my visit and has not been mentioned in the debate. It concerns the general state of law and order in the territory. It is immensely refreshing to walk the streets of Hong Kong, which are litter-free and well policed. According to the police commissioner, the crime figures are amazingly low—there are 13 street crimes and 30 burglaries a day in a community of 5·5 million people. They are quite exceptional figures.
I asked the police commissioner on what he based this performance and he said that he had, quite simply, twice the number of policemen in Hong Kong per head of population as he did as an assistant commissioner of police in London. The right hon. Member for Gorton suggested

that a housing Minister should visit Hong Kong to learn their ways. I hope that the Home Secretary will take a note of that vital point.
While in Beijing, I had the privilege of meeting the Vice-Minister in charge of Hong Kong affairs. The word that is in everybody's mind is confidence. I am convinced that the Government of the People's Republic of China fully understand that fact and, in the action of supporting the futures market, demonstrated their desire to put their money where their mouth is. That was one of the most dramatic exhibitions of their intention to honour their commitments. It is vital that our Government do the same, because confidence is fragile and could so easily be disturbed. I left after a very happy visit with the firm view that we were set on a road to a successful transition and I congratulate Ministers on keeping up that momentum.

Sir Russell Johnston: I wish to associate myself with the tribute to Sir Edward Youde. The few remarks that I wish to make are very much in tune with the typically sane and constructive comments of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
I remember the debates in 1984 and 1985 very well. There was no sense of complacency, but there was a feeling that the Government had achieved a very good agreement with the People's Republic of China, given that they had no alternative under international law than to negotiate the best outcome from a position of weakness. The solution of two systems in one country, reserved for half a century, earned for the Foreign Secretary and the present Governor, Sir David Wilson, in particular, justifiable and considerable praise.
On Third Reading of the Hong Kong Bill on 6 February 1985, I regretted that the self-determination route could not have been followed, because that was the genuine democratic response and I had no doubt then—nor do I have any doubt now—that, given that option, the overwhelming majority of the people of Hong Kong would have chosen to follow the example of their mirror city, Singapore.
That would have required an act of unique magnanimity by the People's Republic of China. In any case, the republic came a long way and the agreement was hailed as an ingenious, flexible and enlightened document. However, the way in which the agreement will be implemented depends on the framing of the Basic Law, which lies with Peking. The first draft is due in April, the second draft next year and the final draft in 1990.
The impetus for our debate stems from the confluence of two things. First, it stems from the first draft of the Basic Law. We all know that first drafts are very important. Sometimes they are more important than at other times. Secondly, it stems from the approach of a new term for the Legislative Council which will overlap the final production of the Basic Law.
The view expressed by the Hong Kong Delegation for Democracy, led by Martin Lee — which many hon. Members, including the Foreign Secretary, have seen—is that the new Legislative Council must have a significant directly elected element. The proposal of 25 per cent. is I think prudent, restrained and sensible. As right hon. and hon. Members have said, this is the central issue of the


debate. Page 5 of the delegation's position paper quotes an exchange between the Foreign Secretary and myself on 25 October 1984. It states:
In answer to Mr. Russel Johnston's question whether he had 'encountered any objection from the People's Republic to the development by the United Kingdom over the next 13 years of directly elected institutions in Hong Kong', Sir Geoffrey dovetailed the Green Paper proposals with those made in the draft Agreement by saying:
`The agreement provides for the Legislature of Hong Kong in the future to be on an elective basis and for the Executive to be accountable to that legislature.'.
It is central to the realisation of the concept of one country and two systems that democratic institutions are evolved and, as hon. Members have said, given time to bed down. Therefore, a beginning should be made now. If it is not, the hope and trust that certainly characterised the response to the joint declaration in 1985 will be gravely damaged, and that, in time, will have an economic effect.
The absence so far of specific proposals for a directly elected element for the new legislature is seen by many, rightly or wrongly, as stemming, first, from the Foreign Office—with great respect, I must say that the Foreign Secretary's remarks were opaque; he said quite a lot but we could not see any specific affirmation—and its pressure on the Hong Kong Government, and, secondly, from pressure from the People's Republic on our Government.
That perception exists despite the assurances that we have heard most recently from the Opposition spokesmen, particularly the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) who quoted a lady who had obviously had a profound effect upon him and referred to her remarks to the Labour group from the Chinese embassy.

Mr. George Foulkes: No. The lady was from the Chinese embassy, not the Labour group.

Sir Russell Johnston: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I have always thought that some Labour party policies stem from the Chinese embassy.

Mr. Canavan: The hon. Gentleman is thinking of Bob Maclennan again.

Sir Russell Johnston: I seldom think of anything else.
Hardly anyone believes that the delay in making proposals for a democratic element is due to the published results of the two Survey Office soundings of public opinion, which have been quoted. I certainly hope that the Foreign Secretary will say more than he did at the beginning of the debate about the wide discrepancy between the private opinion polls on the subject, which showed between 40 and 60 per cent. of people in favour, and the Survey Office results, which showed a range of 11 to 15 per cent. in favour. That is a significant difference, particularly these days when we are supposed to get much more accurate results.
The Survey Office exercise was so clumsy—the point was well made earlier—as to be seriously flawed. As the right hon. Member for Gorton said, annexe 1 of the joint declaration is relevant. It states that, after 1997, the Hong Kong legislature is to be constituted by election. Unless a start is made now, that will not happen.
Do the Government see 25 per cent. as a start or as an end? It is a good question. We all know that there is a

proposal that the end should be 25 per cent. directly elected, 25 per cent. taken from financial institutions, and 50 per cent. taken from the so-called grand electoral college, which is chosen we know not exactly how, but we can guess. It is not just that it makes a nonsense of the possibility of the rejection of the chief executive—something that was spoken about at the time—but ill describes a provincial Hong Kong with its independence of action not only circumscribed but neutered.
Many hon. Members have remarked on the failure of successive British Governments to move Hong Kong in a democratic direction. Successive Governments have defended themselves by saying that they wished to avoid provocation. Of course, they were in an exposed position. In practice, the media—the newspapers—have become a democratic surrogate: the release valve for free expression As we move into a more active dialogue with the People's Republic of China, there are some things from which we cannot shrink. We cannot avoid some direct challenges on future safeguards for the kind of open dispute that is now available in Hong Kong—even without democratic: institutions—but which, despite the notable changes that have taken place within China, are still very limited there.
The Foreign Secretary mentioned human rights. I shall make three short quotations from the document on the People's Republic of China that was published last year by our parliamentary human rights group. The first quotation, which appears on page three, makes a point that I have often noticed. It states:
The contrast with the Soviet Union could hardly be more stark. There, irrespective of the economic and political reforms introduced by Mikhail Gorbachev, Western leaders have used their leverage to insist on human rights concessions. When Secretary Shultz was in Beijing in March 1987 he never met with Chinese dissidents nor said anything publicly about human rights violations. On visiting Moscow in April, he took reporters and television cameramen with him to meet Soviet refusniks …and used the occasion to declare that 'we never give up, we never stop trying' to advance human rights in the Soviet Union.
Some examples of that appear on page 75. It refers to the summary execution of thousands of common criminals, 7,000 to 14,000 persons who were executed without due process of law between 1983 and 1986, the situation in Tibet, and so on. The publication goes on:
International human rights efforts in fact have intensified on behalf of groups in South Korea and Taiwan seeking greater political liberty. But China's economic accomplishments have sidetracked observers from pressing for political and legal institutions that could better protect China's citizens and strengthen the underpinnings of its economic modernization.
These are sensitive, difficult issues. In raising them, I in no way intend to diminish the significance and worth of what has been accomplished in the Hong Kong agreement. However, we in the United Kingdom, who have made Hong Kong — certainly for reasons which can now clearly be seen to be disreputable — have maintained it and overseen its expansion, which stems from the vigour of its inhabitants who went there of their own choice. We now have a responsibility to do our utmost to fulfil an historic trust.
I described the Hong Kong press as a surrogate democracy. I understand from the right hon. Member for Gorton that what I say now is being broadcast live. It will certainly be reported, but will that be the case after 1997? If the majority of the Legislative Council is democratically elected, I believe that it will be; otherwise, I doubt whether it will be.
I take the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). We are talking about our honour as a country and the effect on it if we fail to discharge a clear moral debt.
Regrettably, the debate has been a short one. There are other issues that I could have developed that demand attention, such as the status of passports and the boat people. I must say to the Foreign Secretary, in all earnestness, that when he said, almost casually in his offbeat fashion, that we could repatriate the boat people with adequate guarantees, a little shiver ran down my spine. It was not nice to hear such an idea in the middle of a debate.
The election is the immediate issue and it is the touchstone of future confidence in the arrangements for Hong Kong. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will be rather more positive before the debate is over than he was in opening it.

Sir Peter Blaker: Like others who have spoken, I favour direct elections. The question is what part of the Legislative Council should be directly elected, and when that should happen.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-superMare (Mr. Wiggin), I do not take it as axiomatic that 100 per cent. of directly elected Members of the Legislative Council, based on the Westminster model, is necessarily right for Hong Kong. A start should be made with 25 per cent. of the Legislative Council being directly elected, to see how that works. It should then move on, the success of that percentage having been demonstrated, to a larger one. Direct elections should start between 1988 and 1991, not at a later date. For part of the Legislative Council, it should be not later than 1991.
I have three points to make in that regard. First, we are still in the lifetime of the first Legislative Council containing indirectly elected Members. Therefore, we have not had a chance to see how the experiment is working. It has certainly transformed debate in Hong Kong. The debate there is more vocal and, on the whole, is well-informed. It is interesting that there is no sign of the people of Hong Kong saying, "The people in the Legislative Council, whether nominated or indirectly elected, lack authority because they are not directly elected by the people." At present it is not losing authority for that reason.
We hear remarks, such as those made by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), that time is running out. That makes the basic assumption that the clock stops in 1997. Why are we assuming that? I know of no reason why we should assume it. We have not seen the draft Basic Law. We do not know whether there will be provision for further evolution in the special administrative region—SAR—of Hong Kong after 1997.
The most important question is, what do the people of Hong Kong want? I attach importance to the report of the Survey Office. It has done a very thorough job, and it was congratulated by the independent monitors on having properly, accurately and impartially conducted its operations. It is wrong to describe its work as a concoction, as has been alleged, implying that it was some sort of rigged arrangement by the Government of Hong Kong. That is a disgraceful allegation to make.
It is also said that it was wrong for the Survey Office to attribute different weights to different types of submissions, depending on whether they were letters from individuals, petitions or stereotyped letters. As I read it, the Survey Office report does not do that. It reports what happened and leaves the reader to make his own judgment.
With regard to the different opinion polls, A. G. B. McNair is a well-known polling company of international repute. It was selected on the basis of an open tender. The target population that it took was the adult population of Hong Kong. It operated by random sample, chose a group of 3,000 people to test, and conducted a pilot test in advance. Its methods seem to have been thoroughly professional, and it certainly was not doing what it was told by the Hong Kong Government.

Mr. Foulkes: When I was in Hong Kong last week I spoke to the managing director of A. G. B. McNair, who confirmed that the formulation of the questions that were asked in the survey were based on the wording of the Green Paper and that, given a free hand to ask more direct and simple questions, the questions in the survey were not the ones that would have been asked. She felt constrained by the complicated wording of the Green Paper.

Sir Peter Blaker: That is a very interesting remark. It is news to me that the company was instructed to adopt that wording. If it is correct I accept that, but it does not invalidate my argument. A. G. B. McNair used experienced and trained interviewers and it had —perhaps this is the most important point—3,000 face-to-face interviews.
If one looks at some of the other opinion polls that are referred to in the document that has been circulated by the Delegation for Democracy, the organisation led by Mr. Martin Lee, one finds a lesser degree of professionalism. The colonywide polls were largely conducted by telephone. If one conducts a survey by telephone, one automatically limits the people whom one can reach to telephone owners. Therefore, one is excluding more than half the population of Hong Kong. I can see no reason why non-telephone owners would be more likely than others to want direct elections in 1998. It is wrong to imagine that people who are opposed to direct elections in 1988 are representative only of big business.
Other polls were confined to specific population groups; for example, a group of university students. I can imagine what sort of reply I would receive if I polled a group of university students.
If one looks at appendix 7 to the voluminous report by the Survey Office, one gets a better idea of the nature of the other surveys that have been cited by those who are calling for direct elections in 1988. My reading of the Survey Office report is that there is clearly a majority in favour of direct elections, but not in 1988. I believe that the majority are against direct elections in 1988, but in favour of them at a later date.
What is beyond dispute is that there is a serious and large divide in the population. I should like to repeat the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) asked: why should we imagine that people would be less inclined to obtain passports for Canada, Australia or the United States if they had been promised direct elections in 1988? It is possible that there would be more concern if it were announced that there were to be direct elections in 1988 than there is now. It


would not be right to move towards direct elections at the present time, given the clear division among the population of Hong Kong, and given also that we are still in the first legislature that has been elected, even partially, by indirect elections.
Secondly, I want to deal with the accusations that have been made against Her Majesty's Government by the Delegation for Democracy. Somebody must mention these allegations, because Her Majesty's Government have been accused, in plain terms, of breaking their promises. That is a serious accusation. and I asked Mr. Lee how he substantiated that accusation. I asked him to quote the words on which he was relying. He was unable to find any words to that effect. The closest that he could get was to refer to undertakings about the development of representative government. That has happened, and Mr. Lee is an example of the development of representative government.
Mr. Lee referred to a 1984 report which said that a substantial section of opinion was in favour of direct elections in 1988, but he could not point to a promise by Her Majesty's Government that there would be direct elections in 1988. I hope that this accusation will not be repeated. It is unjust. It is unwise for the Delegation for Democracy to make that accusation, because it reduces its credibility. The people who know about these matters know that the accusation is not true.
The accusation generates an atmosphere of acrimony, which is highly undesirable. What is more, it is deeply offensive. 1 was born in Hong Kong. I have followed the events there for decades, and have done so especially closely in recent years. I have followed the statements, and I know that there has been no such statement by Her Majesty's Government. I hope that we have heard the last of that accusation.
Thirdly, what should be the attitude of the Hong Kong people towards China? I understand their nervousness. They did not want to be transferred to the sovereignty of China. China is enormous, and Hong Kong is tiny. China has a Communist system which the people of Hong Kong do not want, but I ask the Hong Kong people to look at the pluses.
There is what is generally agreed to be an excellent joint declaration, which was made in 1984 and gives the Hong Kong people all the freedoms that they could possibly want. That international agreement is registered with the United Nations. It gives the Hong Kong people a guarantee of freedom from Socialism for 50 years after 1997—something that I should be happy to see in this country, where we do not enjoy such a guarantee.
We see that China is carrying out its obligations. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary referred to the excellent work of the Sino-British Land Commission, which has been carried out harmoniously. Hong Kong has been independently accepted by various international economic and cultural organisations. Harmonious and constructive work has been carried out by the Joint Liaison Group.
If I had been asked a few years ago whether it was conceivable that there would be a committee drafting the Basic Law of Hong Kong under the aegis of the People's Republic of China, and that virtually half the members of that committee would be from Hong Kong, I should have been astonished, but the Basic Law drafting committee exists. I should have been astonished also at the idea of the

Basic Law consultative committee, which consists, I believe, entirely of Hong Kong people and is advising the Basic Law drafting committee.
If I had been told that all the drafting committee's activities would be conducted virtually in public, I should have been amazed. Everyone knows what the committee is talking about. Its discussions are immediately reported in the press. This is one of the most intense, thorough consultations that I have seen in 24 years in politics. It is incredible, and it is conducted under the aegis of the Chinese Government, of whom some hon. Members are so suspicious. That is really what those hon. Members are saying when they call urgently for a move to direct elections this year—that they are suspicious of China.
The attitude adopted by the Delegation for Democracy is mistaken. It is a confrontational posture, which is unwise. I do not think that it will help in the development of true co-operation. Part of the loss of confidence in the future by the people of Hong Kong, which some recent opinion polls say exists, may be due to the activities of the Delegation for Democracy, which is causing fear—

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: This is shameful.

Sir Peter Blaker: 1 agree that it is shameful.

Mr. Hughes: No, what my right hon. Friend is saying is shameful.

Sir Peter Blaker: My hon. Friend may have an opportunity to speak later. I hope that he will, and I shall listen with close attention.
The people of Hong Kong face a difficult process of adjustment, but what is the picture from the Chinese side? It is worth while the people of Hong Kong asking themselves that question. China has agreed to the joint declaration. It is an enormous step for China to take to accept the one-country, two-systems concept. Hong Kong will continue to be run by the Hong Kong people in a capitalist manner for 50 years after 1997. China is honouring the agreement. It is continuing to honour the agreement because that is in China's interest. Hong Kong is of immense value to China as it is—a capitalist, thriving, prosperous territory which will bring China great wealth and technology.
Hong Kong is China's open door on the world Therefore, the Chinese are having to make enormous adjustments. They are learning about capitalism. We have seen the assistance that the Bank of China gave a few weeks ago in rescuing the Hong Kong future's market. I remember when Hu Yao Bang was relieved of his post—I think last year. It caused great concern in Hong Kong. China purchased a large share in Cathay Pacific. I do not know whether that was a conicidence, but, if it was not, it was a remarkable step. The negotiation was conducted at great speed and helped to stabilise confidence in Hong Kong. That is in great contrast to 1984, when the Hang Seng index fell dramatically during a difficult phase of the negotiations that we were conducting with China and the Chinese put it down to Britain playing the economic card. Would that one could manage the Hang Seng index as easily as that!
Having learnt a great deal about capitalism, China is learning about representative government—a concept foreign to the Government and people of China. The questions are not simply: what will China do for Hong Kong and what will be the effect of China on Hong Kong?


The question is also: what effect will Hong Kong have on China? The question which we should debate is much bigger than the single one of direct elections in 1988 or in 1991. It is a matter of confrontation or co-operation. I opt for co-operation.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I was surprised by the speech of the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker). The House respects his voice on the issue of Hong Kong, but his speech astounded me. I was surprised that he based so much of his case on the Survey Office report. The argument against the report is not that it was rigged. That is a preposterous charge. Clearly, the Hong Kong Government initiated the report in good faith and it would be wrong to accuse them of rigging it. The argument put forward by statisticians and other market researchers against the report is that it was invalid. All the polls to which the right hon. Gentleman referred reached the opposite conclusion. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman based so much of his case on those polls.
I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South attacked the Delegation for Democracy so strongly. I met Mr. Lee only five minutes before the debate. I did not know him before and I do not agree with everything that the Delegation for Democracy says. But why should not that delegation be confrontational? Why should it not fight passionately for its rights? We do not have to agree with all it says, but it is entitled to fight passionately because the livelihood of its members is at stake. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman was so indignant about the delegation's case.
There are reasons why we feel that the people of Hong Kong want immediate direct elections. The movement out of Hong Kong is disturbing. Some people are moving out. Some people do not speak out because they do not want to offend the Chinese, and that is quite understandable. If I was there, I would not want to offend China if I thought that China opposed direct elections—although, in fact, I believe that it favours them. So many want direct elections. For all those reasons, I think that the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South was wrong in his analysis.
The great challenge underlying the debate and facing the Governments of China, Britain and Hong Kong, is how to make a reality of Deng Xiaoping's imaginative concept of one nation, two systems. That was an inspired idea and the Chinese deserve all credit for it. The difficulty is that everyone involved has a different history, a different cultural background and a different way of life, so there is a danger that there will be widely differing interpretations and expectations and that misunderstandings will arise. That is what we must avoid.
In this House, we focus mainly on the interests of Hong Kong, and rightly so, because we are still in charge and we shall remain in charge for the next nine years. I do not think that we fully appreciate the pressures that the new concept puts on China. Although China will eventually benefit from Hong Kong's financial and economic strength, it will have to accept in return a system alien to its own. China is accepting—even welcoming—a system that results in the accrual of great wealth to the Hong Kong people and gives them a higher standard of living than China's own people.
The Chinese Government deserve great credit for their constructive attitude to Hong Kong in recent years. They have shown that they can appreciate the nature of Hong Kong's prosperity and they are responsive to the Hong Kong people, which is very encouraging for the future. However, inevitably, those in Hong Kong are concerned about what lies ahead. It would be surprising if they were not. There is to be a change in sovereignty and a shift to the concept of one nation, two systems. That will create a major economic and political upheaval.
Before that takes place, many vital issues will have to be settled—not just the issue of direct elections. The selection procedure for the civil service will be a very important issue, as will the balance of power and the balance of the assembly to be elected. We all await the publication of the draft Basic Law with interest, because that will affect all these basic issues.
However, the immediate issue that is being tossed back and forth in the debate is that of direct elections. For better or for worse, direct elections have become symbolic of good will and good intentions. Direct elections pose new questions, because, although Britain has outstanding achievements to its credit in Hong Kong, democracy is not one of them. We have nothing to boast about in that respect because we have done very little. Along with our magnificent and historic achievements in Hong Kong, let us recognise our failure to introduce democracy.
Some press reports create the impression that China is unenthusiastic about direct elections in Hong Kong. But, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, China has said specifically that it favours direct elections, although the precise form has yet to be decided. It is therefore a question of timing and extent. Some people think that the issue of direct elections gives rise to a conflict between China's requirement of sovereignty and Hong Kong's desire for autonomy based on democracy. If the critics are to be believed, direct elections could threaten the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. I believe that those critics are quite wrong. They have misjudged the situation.
China's right to sovereignty in 1997 is indisputable, but it is generally understood—at least we hope that it is—that the Basic Law will include an element to cover direct elections. If so, we should introduce direct elections immediately, in 1988. That convergent development would not threaten China's position in 1997. As a matter of fact, direct elections this year would greatly benefit China because it would then have democratically elected people who could speak knowledgeably to it about the wishes of Hong Kong's people.
It is to cast no aspersions on those in LegCo to say that democratically elected people would have a more valid voice. In the long term those democratically elected people will be of great value to China.
I hope that China will declare that it does not oppose early direct elections. Nothing is worse than a great nation appearing to drag its feet on an important issue and then reluctantly acquiescing. I do not believe for a moment that China is reluctant. But China would benefit by being specific about its acceptance of early direct elections, and the doubt in people's minds would be removed.
There would be an added benefit, because in making such a declaration China would demonstrate to a wide public, including the people of Taiwan, its belief in genuine democracy and its pride in the electoral developments taking place in China. Hong Kong would clearly benefit


because elected representatives would be better able to articulate the views of those who live and work in that remarkably prosperous territory. Hong Kong could then have a constructive dialogue and a harmonious relationship with China.
Some people, whose opinions and experience are greatly respected, advocate a pause to allow Hong Kong to absorb the recent electoral developments. I do not agree. Notwithstanding the speech of the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South—a fine speech, but one with which I differ—Hong Kong has no time to pause. There are only nine years left before the transfer of sovereignty and Hong Kong must cope quickly with change. I have no doubt that, because the Hong Kong people are adaptable, they will he able to cope with that change. Direct elections will promote, rather than damage, the stability of Hong Kong. Some very able people recognise that it will be a matter of concern if such elections are not held.
The value of Hong Kong lies in the quality of its active people. They have the money and the passports, and they will literally fly away if they are denied an early democratic voice. An uneasy people is never a stable people. There is nothing to be lost, and everything to be gained, by both Hong Kong and China from having early direct elections.
Of equal, if not more, importance than those people, who are vital to Hong Kong, is the broader-based segment of active young people who will be the future leaders of Hong Kong. The future of Hong Kong lies with them. Their confidence is vital. However, as with a bank or stock exchange, once confidence is shaken or eroded, it can slide away with growing and unstoppable momentum. Lack of confidence could be an avalanche of disaster for Hong Kong.
Therefore, let us have early direct elections. If those young people are given a democratic voice and new hope for the future, they can raise Hong Kong to new heights of prosperity. They can be an asset of incalculable benefit to Hong Kong and to China if the right decisions are made now.

Mr. Hal Miller: I shall follow the remarks of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on one country, two systems, in a moment, but I cannot allow his attack on my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) to pass. I happened to be present at one of his meetings with Mr. Martin Lee. Orator of silken persuasiveness and practised reason, and successful advocate, that he is, he made the stark accusation that the Hong Kong and British Governments had acted in bad faith and had gone back on their words, and he used the phrase,
the survey report was a concoction.
One monitor of the report was one of my most esteemed colleagues in the Hong Kong Government, so I had better declare an interest. There is no question that Mr. Li FookKow would be party to a "concoction" of the survey report. I find that a damaging and a bitter accusation. I am grateful for the fact that my right hon. Friend rebutted it so forcefully and conclusively.
I find it a little ungenerous that sources are quoted, such as Mr. Martin Lee or the representative of the embassy of the People's Republic of China, but that little reference seems to have been made in the debate to the advice tendered by the Unofficial Members of the Executive and

Legislative Councils, and especially to the senior Unofficial Member, Miss Lydia Dunn. I should have thought that some attention might be paid to the views which she and they have expressed, because they carry responsibility in a difficult situation.
As I walked to the Commons this morning there was a light precipitation which, at this time of year—the approach to the Chinese new year—is referred to in Hong Kong as Suet Sui. It is a propitious omen and guarantees prosperity in the forthcoming year.
I return to the joint declaration and the cement between the British and the Chinese Governments that consists of the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong—because that is what this is all about. Direct elections are only part of that declaration.
I regarded as rather remiss the remarks of the right hon . Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), as I did those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old I3exley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). They seemed determined to impose the smack of firm government on Hong Kong., which they were unable to exercise in this country. I cannot imagine anything that would be more likely to shake confidence in Hong Kong than the British Government suddenly starting to impose solutions there, upon which the people had not been consulted and to which they had not given manifest and majority consent. That has never been the way in which Hong Kong has been administered.
I am not going to take lessons in democracy. I was the returning officer at the first elections that were held in Hong Kong, to the urban council, in 1956. All the talk about direct elections ignores the fact that they have been taking place for some time and have been increased since the 1984 White Paper. That was the gravamen of the charge of my right hon. Friend for Old Bexley and Sidcup.
There have been elections to the district boards, and there has been a greater proportion of elected members on the urban council and regional council in the new territories. Therefore, progress is being made, although perhaps not as rapidly as some of us would naturally be disposed to advocate here. However, please let us remember, while we are still responsible for the administration of Hong Kong—until 1997—that that does not give us carte blanche to impose solutions that are injurious to Hong Kong or foreign to its interests.
However much we may regret that it was not possible to move towards a full democratic and independent Hong Kong, that is no reason for us to indulge in a last-minute flurry to salve our conscience by introducing a semblance of that at the last minute which might prove extremely damaging. Nor should we be tempted to try to establish a kind of outpost of a Western-style democracy to stem the advance of an alien creed—of an alien capitalist system—[Interruption]of an alien Communist system.

Mr. Tony Banks: I liked it the first time.

Mr. Miller: As the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said, we must put this issue into the context of one country, two systems. It is still one country, not two countries, which is an important difference.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Why would it be damaging if there were direct elections, when the People's Republic of China has said that it is prepared to see direct elections?

Mr. Miller: We are all committed to direct elections. The argument turns on the timing of those direct elections, which is exactly the point to which I was coming. We are committed to direct elections, and I am glad that early in his speech my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State gave the assurance that there would be full and faithful implementation by the British Government of the joint declaration. Nobody should accuse him or us of bad faith. However, we must consider the time scale. It is not 1988, 1991 or 1997. As has been said, it is 1997 plus 50 years.
We have talked loosely about direct elections to the legislature, but it is important to remember that nobody has begun to examine the structure of government that is to ensue. Is a full ministerial system expected, with a Government formed from an elected legislature, or is a separation of powers, on the United States' model, between the Executive and the legislature envisaged? Such things need careful definition before we start talking loosely about a directly elected legislature. It is important to understand what system of government is being envisaged.

Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend has touched on an important point about continuing developments in the 50 years, but Hong Kong understands that the position at the time of handover will be carried on for 50 years under the guarantee of Beijing, which is different. My hon. Friend is arguing that Hong Kong should accept that it should go on developing in the way that it wants during those 50 years, but I do not think that that is justified by the understanding in the agreement.

Mr. Miller: I do not accept that the stage of development reached in 1997 will be frozen in aspic. That presupposes that there will be no development in China, either. The form of government must be thought out before direct elections can be meaningfully held. Although China is committed under the joint declaration to an elected legislature, as far as I know—no one has produced evidence to the contrary so far this evening—there is no document that sets out the Chinese view of the elected legislature.

Mr. Foulkes: Yes, there is.

Mr. Miller: I think I am correct in saying that we do not yet have the first draft of the Basic Law, which will be subject to widespread consultation among the people of Hong Kong—a consultation which, I can well imagine, might exceed that undertaken by the Survey Office. I can see grave difficulties if movement has begun on a directly elected legislature in a direction that is not envisaged in the draft of the Basic Law, which, when it appears, will be subject again to a widespread public consultation exercise, followed by final confirmation and enactment some time in 1990. Those are facts of life, and they must be carefully taken into consideration.
Then there is the comparatively minor matter of getting the sequence of elections as between the district boards, the urban councils and Legislative Council right, but the Basic Law is the thing, and our task this evening is to ram home our commitment to direct elections and to seek to influence the content of the Basic Law. We shall influence its content only if we show a real understanding of the position in China and Hong Kong, reaffirm our commitment to the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong

and do nothing to undermine them by introducing unknown quantities and possibilities—for example, the formation of political parties and an opposition.
We might have been pleased to see those things were Hong Kong to remain independent, but the thought of such formalised opposition being established before the introduction of the SAR in 1997 would be most damaging to confidence and stability, and would do away with the whole reason for Hong Kong. So let us be clear what we mean when we talk so loosely about direct elections, and let us concentrate on their timing.
We must remember the importance of maintaining the authority of the Government of Hong Kong right up to 1997. The issue of stability has been raised only briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), but we must give it, and the enforcement of law and order, serious attention. I make a plea to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in the context of the defence costs agreement with the Hong Kong Government. They are having to assume the considerable burden of strengthening the police force to take over that part of the responsibility for internal security that is currently borne by our troops, who are paid for by the defence costs agreement. The Chinese Government have made it plain in the documents that they are not expecting any contribution from Hong Kong towards defence forces, as opposed to internal security forces. I would ask for more generous consideration to be given to Hong Kong in this regard than has thus far been given.
We want the realisation of one country, two systems—of Hong Kong people governing Hong Kong. There is no doubt of our commitment to that, but I warn that it will have to be a Hong Kong system and that that will take some time to evolve.
I end as I began. We may well feel that the people of Hong Kong are in a difficult position between the dragon and the deep blue sea, but I remind the House that, according to the principles of geomancy, a position between the arms of the dragon and the sea is a most desirable place in which to dwell.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) has long experience of the Foreign Office and of the Government in Hong Kong, and we are always interested in what he has to say, although we need to correct some of the tendencies in his remarks in the light of the background against which he speaks. So it is for all of us.
It is now 25 years since I raised the future of Hong Kong in this House on the Easter Adjournment. That was the first debate on Hong Kong since the war. As a newly elected Member, I was surprised to be summoned to the office of the newly elected leader of the Labour party, Lord Wilson as he now is, and still more surprised to find in his office the Lord Privy Seal, in the person of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). The Lord Privy Seal told me that the Foreign Office and the governor were worried about debating the future of Hong Kong publicly, and asked me to call off the debate. Lord Wilson asked me what I was planning to say that could have such a remarkable effect.
I explained that the essential continuity in whatever settlement was reached about 1997 depended on a reasonable continuity of economic development across the border between Hong Kong and its hinterland, and that


that would take time to establish. If it grew, there would be a political basis for a settlement that would safeguard the essential future and the interests of the people of Hong Kong. So it has proved. But the sensitivity of the Foreign Office and of Foreign Office Ministers about stability in Hong Kong is not new. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will follow the example of the Lord Privy Seal, who wound up by saying that he did not see anything wrong with my arguing my case, and the debate went ahead.
All hon. Members have placed the greatest emphasis on the need for stability and continuity during the transition. We also need to recognise that China itself is undergoing a remarkable internal transformation, with a pace of change in some places that exceeds even that of Hong Kong. So of course China is highly sensitive about the situation that it will inherit in Hong Kong. Equally, it will be a somewhat different China in 1997 from what it is today. It will be by no means a homogeneous China. Already, the province of Guangdong does not raise taxes at the rates prescribed by Beijing; it negotiates its taxes with the capital. I was told that this year it is paying no taxes at all to Beijing, which seems a satisfactory outcome to its negotiations.
Such skills in the conduct of political life within China are already being learned rapidly in Hong Kong by all sections of opinion. It is against that background that we have been listening to what the people of Hong Kong are saying, and we must reach a judgment about what, in this rapidly developing situation, we should advise from this House.
There is no possibility of maintaining the status quo. The economic and constitutional development of Hong Kong are inextricably linked. Immigration has been referred to as one important indicator of stability, but perhaps an even more dramatic and immediate one is the exchange rate of the currency. For better or for worse, the touchstone of development—in the first place political but closely followed by economic development—has become the issue whether direct elections to the Legislative Council should be held in 1988. Now that that question has been raised and given a high profile, there is no dodging it. It is necessary to get over this step as soon as possible before Hong Kong can go on to the much more difficult stage of producing its own Executive and working out relations between the Executive and the legislature. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove rightly made that point.
When we reflect on this rapidly changing situation, we must ask ourselves whether it is possible to arrive at a pattern of relationship between the Executive and the legislature if the legislature is itself constituted on a pattern that is quickly to be superseded. Will there be a pattern of relationship between the Members of the Legislative Council, the electorate and the Executive that can develop, sustain, advise upon, demonstrate and learn in practice a new system?
Easy comparisons can be made. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove drew attention to the Westminster ministerial pattern and pointed out that is not the only one because there is the United States pattern, the pattern of local government and so on. None of the patterns offers easy, quickly learned or instantly absorbable patterns that would fit naturally into Hong Kong. Hong Kong must have time to learn these very necessary arts of government.
We recently had a good demonstration in Hong Kong of the need to learn following the stock exchange crash. An appeal was made to Beijing for financial support which

was quickly given. An appeal was made to London for people and they were quickly forthcoming to help advise in and resolve a rather difficult situation. Such people will not be forthcoming and cannot be summoned in the same way in 1997. Problems will have to be resolved by the people of Hong Kong and they will have to gain experience and establish traditions at breakneck pace over the nine years from now until 1997.
How does the relationship between the Executive and the legislature develop to the point where it can deal with such sensitive issues as the stability of financial markets and the level of the exchange rate? We know from our own experience that we cannot deal with those things in detachment from the facts of our own economy. They affect wages, employment and public expenditure. When Governments are dealing with the instabilities of the world against a background of the support and confidence of their own people, they are in an incomparably better position to defend their people and to stand up for their interests in debates involving different national interests.
The arguments for going ahead with direct elections this year seem quite overwhelming. What are the reasons that have led to any doubt about that in any part of the House, but perhaps more on the Conservative than on the Opposition side? First, we had the survey of the public response to the Green Paper. Seldom can so competent a Government have made such a shambles of a consultative process, especially a Government that are so expert at sussing out public opinion.
To find out about public reaction to a rise in fares on the Star ferry, questions are asked and the Executive Council get the answer within a week. It is a vastly more thorough process of consultation than could take place in Britain. However, against that background there was a great deal of confusion and an inability to ask simple questions and receive simple answers. I do not myself think that the survey was deliberately confusing. It was an accident.
The People's Republic of China has made it clear that the administration of Hong Kong up to 1997 is a matter for the British Government. However, it has expressed through many channels unease about whether the direct elections—which it accepts—should be held this year. Inevitably, there are tremendous and very proper sensitivities in Hong Kong to the wishes of the People's Republic of China. It is natural that there should be a certain hesitation about going ahead with what is within the Hong Kong context a perfectly obvious and mandatory step. This should not be allowed to become a question of face.
The draft Basic Law will be published in April, and the Hong Kong Government are due to make known in February their judgment about direct elections in 1988. That is early in the year and it would not help for me to suggest to the House, still less to the skilled diplomats concerned, that the specific forms for the proper provisions of the draft Basic Law and the necessity to go ahead with direct elections in 1988 must be reconciled in a way that properly recognises the profound interest that everybody has in the continued peaceful, successful development of Hong Kong.
I am confident that the good will of the House for the future of Hong Kong and a firm expression that Hong Kong, being in charge of its own destiny, has every right


to have those direct elections as soon as possible—and they can be held in 1988—is the right message to go out from the House.

Mr. Robert Adley: I am fortunate to follow two speakers who both have long and close connections with Hong Kong. I first went there in 1955, I think, and have gone there regularly ever since.
I agree with most of what has been said by hon. members who say that we cannot possibly speak on the issue sensibly and seriously without putting the discussions in the context of history. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) said, to do so is a fundamental mistake which could have lasting and damaging effects on the people of Hong Kong. It is the people of Hong Kong whom we should be thinking about and I utterly reject the proposition that their future welfare depends solely and simply on whether there should be direct elections this year. That is so to simplify and trivialise the situation that it is not worthy of serious discussion.
I take issue on one matter raised by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray). He spoke about the ability of people to assess public opinion in Hong Kong about the Star ferry fares and assumed that one could use the same process to deal with the complex situation surrounding whether, and when, there should be direct elections, to which body, by whom, at what time and with or without parties. That is about as fair a comparison as the one with which I concerned myself recently, when I heard about a public opinion test of people visiting a museum that had been subjected to museum charges. They were asked, "Do you accept these charges or would you rather go into the museum free?" It is not very difficult to assess the answer that is likely to be given to that question.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) that direct elections have been made the issue. They have been made the issue by the media and by people who have an interest in spreading unease in Hong Kong. They have been made the issue by people who have their own purpose and private interests in promoting that proposition. However, I reject the proposition that it is the only question of interest to the people of Hong Kong. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) is not in the Chamber. I intervened in his speech. For him to start making comparisons in 1988 with what we were able to do or what happened in Singapore or Kenya or Timbuctoo is wholly farcical. Anyone who is aware of the history of Hong Kong would accept that.
I am also sorry that the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, criticised so severely the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), who was born in Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, in many instances for media-driven reasons, we are increasingly being presented with confrontation. It is as though the people of Hong Kong were being forced to make choices this week to determine their future for the next 50 or 60 years. Along with my right hon. Friend, I earnestly believe that the choice that really faces them is between confrontation a la Martin Lee and his friends, and cooperation under changing circumstances and with the

Government of the People's Republic of China—with whom they will have to work, and under whose sovereignty they will have to live.
I well remember the speech by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) during the debate to which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred. Let me quote briefly from his wise words:
The skill of our diplomatists, combined with the underlying good will of the Beijing Government, has transformed the atmosphere and offered the people of Hong Kong a far more promising future than most people expected when this act of the drama opened in the summer of 1982." —[Official Report, 21 January 1985; Vol. 71, c. 742.]

Mr. Foulkes: Perhaps the hon. Member will recall his own speech on 5 December 1984, when he said:
Those who hold power in Hong Kong now like it, and want to hold on to it. They have not been elected to it and have an obvious incentive to resist change." —[Official Report, 5 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 434.]
Can he tell us why he has changed his view since then, and where the inspiration has come from?

Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman has come to these affairs comparatively recently. He will know, however, that I have not always been the greatest friend of the Hong Kong Government. As I was about to say, I think that the establishment in Hong Kong has had a great deal to answer for over the past few years, and in the recent past the Hong Kong Government have certainly drawn considerable criticism from me.
Without divulging too many secrets which might cause embarrassment, I can say that there were occasions when I had to invoke the assistance of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to deal with some of the dirty tricks practised on me by that Government some years ago, when they deduced that I was a critic of theirs. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to make that point.
Let me return to putting the matter into its historical context. It was not a matter of free and easy choice that we had to make new arrangements for the sovereignty of Hong Kong; it was due to the impending end of the lease on the new territories. It is very dangerous to allow ourselves in the House—or, indeed, for the people of Hong Kong to allow themselves—to forget that we were faced with circumstances that seemed to leave us in a straitjacket. As has been said on many occasions, few of us in those days could have imagined that such an excellent arrangement could be made to secure the future prosperity and stability of the people of Hong Kong.
Either we accept the good will of the British and Chinese Governments to ensure that the agreement is carried out or, if we do not, we should say so. If people believe that there was and is a better deal on offer, critics of the present system should speak up, but I do not believe that a better deal could ever have been envisaged. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove that it is grossly insulting to suggest that the British Government are failing to do their best to carry out their obligations under the agreement.
We all know that the Government of the People's Republic are not opposed in principle to direct elections. I presume that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)—I am sure that he will tell me if I am misreading his attempts to paint me a different colour—was trying to imply that I was wearing


my hat as chairman of the British-Chinese parliamentary group, and acting as a spokesman for the People's Republic. That charge has been thrown at me on more than one occasion, and I do not think that it is even necessary to rebut it.
We are all concerned to retain the stability and prosperity that Hong Kong has enjoyed for a long time. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove did not put it quite so bluntly, that stability and prosperity are based firmly and simply on autocracy, not on democracy. We owe it to the people of Hong Kong to ensure that, before we chuck out the baby with the bath water, we know clearly what we are putting in its place. Overt and covert pressure has always been brought to bear on Hong Kong by the Chinese Government, not just since 1949. The history books show that much of what was said in 1911 about the British in Hong Kong was far more vigorous and unhelpful than anything said by Beijing since 1949.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South invited the House briefly to consider the position from the point of view of the Chinese Government. Sensible people in Hong Kong know that they must learn to live with China. That is a fact of life, and there is no point in trying to avoid it. Either they must accept the good will of the Chinese Government, or they must believe that that Government are deliberately trying to string them, the House and the British Government along until 1997, when they will suddenly impose some new system. I consider that mischievous, and utterly nonsensical. If, however, we suppose it to be true, what difference would it make which institutions we put in place now? Surely we should advise the people of Hong Kong that co-operation, not confrontation, is essential.
Like most hon. Members, I have received a great deal of paper, and I shall not weary the House with numerous quotations. I am bound to say, however, that it is not only Mr. Martin Lee and his friends who are stirring up mischief. I received a communication from the Hong Kong Social Workers General Union, stating:
The people of Hong Kong would not tolerate the decision to postpone the introduction of direct elections by 3 years and it would be folly to assume that they would accept such a decision mildly".
That sounds almost like an attempt to generate insurrection, and—at the very least—suspiciously like a threat. I do not think that such wild statements are doing any good to the people of Hong Kong as they struggle, understandably, towards a new future.
If I have any contact with the Chinese Government—which, of course, I have—I may be able to give the House the benefit of some wisdom and understanding. Unfortunately for me, however, that has already been done by the right hon. Member for Gorton, and, indeed, by the Foreign Secretary. They have both said what we know to be true: that the Chinese Government are not opposed to the principle of direct elections. All that we are talking about is timing: the timing of the introduction of direct elections, in relation to the progress of the joint liaison group and the development of the Basic Law.
It seems to me rather unwise to try to rush headlong into direct elections for an assembly none of whose constitutional arrangements have even been discussed, let alone put in place, before that Basic Law is complete. I believe that that would be the view of the Chinese Government. I may be wrong—it may be a changeable position. However, it would seem sensible to put the Basic

Law in place first in 1990, and then have the first direct elections. Doing otherwise, and pushing through direct elections for their own sake, would be a recipe for instability. If that were done in the face of opposition from the Government of the People's Republic—I do not know whether they are opposed—it would be flying in the face of sanity and disregarding respect for the sovereignty of the People's Republic, which could not be in the interests of the people of Hong Kong.
I am worried that some people in Hong Kong are allowing themselves to be misled by ambitious local politicians and trouble makers who want to generate unrest and who clearly do not trust the Chinese or British Governments. Perhaps most dangerous of all, some people are allowing themselves to be misled by well - meaning do-gooders.
The reputation of the Chinese Government depends on their ability to maintain the stability of Hong Kong. I should have thought that that was self-evident to everyone. The message to the people of Hong Kong must be that they should not allow themselves to be misled by siren voices.
The stock exchange scandal has been mentioned. I shall mention it only to illustrate a point. The British and Chinese Governments are clearly committed to maintaining stability. If stability is upset, however, it will not be upset in London or Beijing—it is likely to be upset only by what goes on in Hong Kong.
I told the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley that I have not always been the most ardent admirer of the Hong Kong Government. In the person of Sir David Wilson, however, Hong Kong has the finest possible Governor to see it through the next few turbulent years. It would be hard to imagine a more wise or better friend. Hong Kong's gain is our loss and the Government's loss in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He is a good man. He will do his best to ensure that the people of Hong Kong are led steadily forward during the next few years.
We all want to do our best for the people of Hong Kong, but it should be steady as she goes. Working constructively with the British and Chinese Governments is far more likely to achieve that than listening to those who appear to have instant solutions to every problem.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: I am glad, at long last, to have an opportunity to intervene somewhat briefly in this very important debate.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) will not be too surprised to find that I endorse utterly every word that he said, as I endorsed the contributions of his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller). That is not too surprising in view of the fact that the four of us have always taken a considerable interest in the affairs both of China and of Hong Kong, and, if I may say so with my usual arrogance, we probably know more about it than the great mass of Members in the House of Commons.
The emphasis in the debate today seems to me to have: been primarily on the need for direct elections to the Legislative Council sooner rather than later. It seems to me that the pressures for direct elections in 1988 come from two quarters: first, from the media and from other groups in Hong Kong, some expatriate, whose support for


the Sino-British agreement was always somewhat suspect and who really did not—and do not—want the agreement to work out properly.
Newsmen have been perhaps the most malign in this regard, but there are undoubtedly other factions in Hong Kong itself who were unhappy—always unhappy —about the inevitability of China reclaiming its own after 1997. They are usually the well-heeled and, under the admirable capitalist system of Hong Kong, they have not done too badly. They can afford the luxury of a funkhole somewhere else and they have, of course, the requisite passports and tickets ready to hand. If the future turns difficult for them, they can up and go. Their commitment to making the agreement work is somewhat less than wholehearted.
Then there are those in the West, public opinion formers and parliamentarians in particular—we have them here tonight—whose traditions endorse and whose purpose depends on the cross in the ballot box. They disregard or perhaps conveniently forget that in all the years of colonial government, in spite of our commitment to the electoral ballot, we were diligent in denying it to our subjects in Hong Kong. Now the parliamentary majority are loud in their demand for direct elections now, this year.
Most of us forget, too—we are not well enough versed in knowledge of the history of other peoples, one of the unhappy developments of the abandonment of empire—that China and Chinese people everywhere have totally different cultural and social traditions from ours. The concept of democracy is at variance with their political thought over the many centuries of Chinese life. China, both Confucian and Communist, has shown a long respect for authority and social order—not perhaps ideas that we in the individualist West are too committed to or have too much respect for.
I accept the arguments of those of our Hong Kong friends—some of us have a number of friends in Hong Kong—who say there is no need to rush into elections, that gradualism and convergence will work out best for the true interests of the great mass of the Hong Kong populace who do not have a ticket and a passport to get out.
It is quite clear that public opinion in Hong Kong is very sharply divided on the speed of introduction of direct elections and I am sure that the "direct elections this year" factions are largely the westernised people who have very much fallen under the influence of European attitudes. I believe that those who want to hasten slowly are the great bulk of the populace in Hong Kong who still feel the ancient attachment to China and to Chinese values. That is as, I believe, it should be.
The first draft of the Basic Law is to appear, I gather, in April this year. I suspect it would be advantageous to all the parties, if the Chinese were to accept a move to some proportion of direct elections to LegCo.

Dr. Bray: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish to do an injustice to the people of China. He must be aware that the people of China have gone through a tremendous trauma recently and that it was that trauma which led most of the population of Hong Kong to go where they went. It is against that background of recent history that the matter is being resolved in Hong Kong and China. I think that my hon. Friend is showing remarkable insensitivity to that fact.

Mr. Faulds: No. I am moderately aware of that, but I think that the longer lesson of history is that, whether we like it or not, and whether the people of Hong Kong like it or not, they will be subsumed by China, and the more gracefully that happens, the happier their lot will be.
I hope that the Chinese will agree to something like a 25 per cent. proportion of direct elections. It would not be a bad figure to settle on. The British Government, as we know, are committed to an element of direct elections, but they did not spell it out in a timetable. I personally consider that it would be wiser to wait for that development till 1991 when the Basic Law, which, after all, is going to be the basic fact of Hong Kong's life and future, has been promulgated.
A proposal of a 25 per cent. introduction of direct elections in 1991 would still give some years of practice of democratic conduct of Hong Kong affairs. I should be very concened indeed for the prospects for the agreement and for our relations with China if there were to be too precipitate a move to a much larger proportion of direct elections.
A Government who have the responsibility in 1997 to take over Hong Kong have a legitimate interest in how things evolve politically—a point made by one of our Hong Kong friends. This is where convergence of developments with the Basic Law is so crucial, indeed critical, to the future of Hong Kong. Nothing could be worse for the future, both politically and economically, than for the introduction of changes before 1997 which the then Chinese Government might have to unscramble—and, of course, they would have to suffer the opprobrium of the international community if that were to happen.
Finally, there is another risk factor in rushing into direct elections. Party politics is all very well in our old democracies, regardless of the damage the swing of the pendulum often does to the real interest of the people concerned. But if direct elections were to lead to party politics in Hong Kong, the damage would be immense. There would be really only two parties involved—in our sense of party politics — and they would be the Communists and the Knomintang. Imagine what turmoil of instability that would lead to.
I believe that by far the most sensible course for us to urge in Hong Kong is to trust the Chinese Government's integrity in their intentions. They have listened to Hong Kong opinion. They were not at first really prepared to do so, but they have done so. They have taken part in very constructive consultations, and they continue to do so. They want a stable and successful Hong Kong for their own national reasons—the continuation of China's reconstruction and her economic progress and, of course, the reclaiming of Taiwan.
We should always remember that China, under a variety of governmental systems, has historically observed its obligations. I believe that all will be well—I am by nature an optimist, but I think that we have good reason in this case—and that unwise pressures from this House or this Government could do nothing but harm to Hong Kong's stability and success, and that is what we must be most concerned about.

Mr. Alastair Goodlad: I begin by strongly supporting my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in his eloquent plea for


further urgent action to remedy the problem of Indo-Chinese refugees in Hong Kong. This country has a proud record with regard to the number of Indo-Chinese refugees that it has accepted through Hong Kong and with regard to our efforts in orchestrating their resettlement elsewhere.
As I rehearsed to the House in the Christmas Adjournment debate, the position is becoming markedly worse. The number of refugees arriving for resettlement is increasing and the number accepted for resettlement elsewhere is declining. Since we debated the matter in the Christmas Adjournment debate, the position has become even worse. The number of arrivals in December was 278 and the figures for October, November and December were the highest since 1982. The number of people who have already arrived this month is 164, and that is already the highest January figure since 1983.
When my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State replies, I hope that he will be able to tell us that he has made significant progress in the process of persuading other countries to accept more refugees for resettlement so that this difficult problem may be solved quickly. My right hon. and learned Friend would find that he would have broad support on both sides of the House if this country was to act as a catalyst and offer to take more refugees for settlement than we took in the middle of last year.
I agree broadly with the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller). The views of the people of Hong Kong on direct elections have been canvassed systematically and objectively. It is obviously too early to detect a consensus. Many people did not respond and of those who did, although the majority were in favour, opinion was divided about the type.
It is not surprising that there is no consensus. In this country, democratic institutions have grown up over hundreds of years, but we still try to change and improve their character and workings. Hong Kong has only recently introduced indirect elections and is considering the development of democratic institutions simultaneously with a change in sovereignty to its neighbour, which is not a democratic country in the sense that we use the term.
The motion refers to "stability" and "prosperity". They are both inextricably interlinked in Hong Kong. More than half of those living in Hong Kong previously lived in China. Their perceptions of stability obviously differ from ours. None the less, however they look at it and however we look at it, in an uncertain world the future viability of Hong Kong depends on its stability and on people's perception of its stability. In other words, it depends on confidence.
I believe that a consensus for direct elections will certainly emerge, but people will probably not want to be rushed. It is envisaged that Hong Kong should enjoy a high degree of autonomy after 1997. It follows that there should be as many years as reasonably possible of direct elections and whatever accompanying arrangements emerge for relationships beween the legislature and the Executive. It is equally desirable that the system in place should last beyond 1997. If the draft Basic Law that is expected to emerge in the spring shows a need for further consultation, that should take place before a system is installed.
It is important that the House should be clear about the position of the People's Republic of China. We should not

be misled by vague optimism. I want to quote Mr. Li Hou, the deputy director of the Hong Kong and Macao office of the State Council. In the overseas People's Daily on 24 June 1987 he said:
Concerning the question of whether or not there should be direct elections in 1988, starting from the point of view of convergence between the Basic Law and current reform of the political system in Hong Kong, … until the Basic Law had been formally approved, the Hong Kong political system should not undergo any great change. If direct elections were hastily introduced in 1988, then a situation of non-convergence with the Basic Law would occur … In the past I have thought and now still think that the future political system in Hong Kong should be stipulated by the Basic Law: the political reform being carried out now in Hong Kong should converge with the Basic Law. Until the Basic Law has been formally approved, there should be no change in the political system in Hong Kong. We do not wish to interfere in the administration of Hong Kong by Britain before 199'7, but if the measures being adopted now will have an influence after 1997, or will influence the smooth transition, then we cannot but express our ideas.
We should not be in any doubt about the view of the Government of the People's Republic of China. I believe that there is a strong case for allowing the present arrangements a little time to settle, for experience of democracy to develop, for parties to form and for a confluence of view within Hong Kong with the People's Republic of China about the way in which the way ahead should develop in line with the wishes of the people of Hong Kong.
Hong Kong has a unique record in the world in terms of economic and social achievement. One of the reasons for that is that it enjoys a political consensus—seldom upset—based on pragmatism. It is vital that that is not jeopardised and that the political achievements of the past few years are built on at a measured speed with which consensus can keep pace. There can be no absolute certainty in such matters. It is certain that the People's Republic of China wishes to respect Hong Kong public opinion and that the mutuality of interest of the Hong Kong people and their neighbours must be given a chance to assert itself through institutions with which everybody is at ease and at a pace which can reasonably be achieved.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred to the principle of unripe time and he attributed it to the late Hugh Dalton. I think that Hugh Dalton got it from a book by F. P. Cornford written in the 1920s, called "Microcosmographica Academica", which was about university politics. The principle of unripe time is that one can put off indefinitely anything that really ought to be done by saying that the time is unripe and that it would be better to put it off for a little. But it is never done. That does not apply to Hong Kong.
Cornford linked that principle with the practice c f squaring. Squaring was a process carried out in King's parade. It was done by taking those concerned by the elbow, somewhere between the front entrance of King's and The Copper Kettle, and persuading them to accept one's point of view. There was nothing discreditable about that. In all matters where consensus has to be achieved, a period of time for squaring must be allowed.
Hong Kong's only natural resources are her people, and the genius that they have shown. We must be careful not to do anything to prejudice the stability that has allowed such genius to flower. I have every confidence that if things continue at a measured pace, Hong Kong will continue to flower long into the next century.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House wanted to speak in the debate. It is absolutely selfish for hon. Members, who know of the pressure on time, to make very long speeches, thus shutting out other hon. Members who wish to make points.
I wished to make a short, sharp point about the trade in endangered species in Hong Kong. Tigers and leopards are eaten in Hong Kong restaurants. That is a form of gastronomic perversion. We have had to listen to many speeches—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I realise that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and a number of other hon. Members on both sides of the House have not been able to speak so far. The hon. Gentleman cannot make his speech under the guise of a point of order. Perhaps I should tell the House that this debate will be interrupted at 7 o'clock for private business. If the private business were to end before 10 o'clock, it would be possible for the House, if it so wished, to return to this motion until 10 o'clock.

Mr. George Foulkes: The interest and eloquence shown today and the queue of speakers waiting to participate in the debate justify the Opposition's request for a debate on the report, and confirms once again the House's great interest in Hong Kong. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will take account of the views expressed in the House and ensure that they are taken into account in the drafting of the White Paper to be published on 10 February.
Before coming to the central issue of the timing of direct elections, I wish to mention the Vietnamese refugees—the boat people. The annual report confirms a dramatic increase in their number—a 65 per cent. increase in 1987. The numbers leaving for settlement are declining. By the end of 1987, the number was 9,530. When I was in Hong Kong, I visited Tuen Mun, one of the closed camps. While I was there, another 120 people arrived. I met members of the Legislative Council who argued unanimously and strongly that they are querying the position of Hong Kong as a place of first refuge.
Already, a number of camps are full to capacity, and overflowing. The closed camps resemble prisons —indeed, one of them was built as a prison. While the Hong Kong Government are doing all they can with great humanity, I heard moving appeals from inmates —including women and children—who were anxious that the British Government should take some action to help them. The conditions in the camps are unacceptable and intolerable.
The British Government have reduced the numbers being accepted. We have taken 468 people in two years. That is not the 40 people a month that used to be accepted, and the conditions of acceptance are restricted to those with family links. We have a moral responsibility to give a lead, and I hope that the Secretary of State will make a positive reply.
As for the central issue, I shall concentrate on one of the principles included in the joint declaration, which must be a bible on these issues. The Secretary of State and the Government must ensure that it is taken account of in the drafting of the Basic Law and other matters. One of the agreed processes is that of convergence. The actions of the

British and Hong Kong Governments up to 1997 should, as far as possible, fit the plans of the People's Republic of China from 1997 onwards, and vice versa, so that there is no disjunction or disruption between 30 June and 1 July 1997.
As the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said, there is no conflict between what the right hon. Gentleman and Opposition Members have proposed and what has been proposed by the People's Republic of China. The right hon. Gentleman knows well the People's Republic of China and its Government. He is well respected by that Government—probably more than by ours. The Foreign Secretary and all hon. Members who have spoken have accepted the principle of direct elections. They accept that the People's Republic of China is not opposed to direct elections in principle, although the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) queried the Basic Law draft.
A substantial collection of draft articles has already been compiled by the secretariat of the drafting committee for the Basic Law published in December last year. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup referred to the three options in which the minimum proportion to be directly elected is 25 per cent. There seems to be no dispute that a percentage of the Legislative Council should be directly elected. The only question is about timing. I agree with the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) that the Opposition have no wish for any confrontation with China, but we sincerely believe that the Government of the People's Republic of China would understand and respect a stand on principle by our Government on that issue.
The views of the people of Hong Kong must be taken into account. So many hon. Members have said that those views are not paramount—as the Government might argue in the case of another dependent territory, but I shall leave that aside—but they must certainly be given a great deal of priority. As several hon. Members have said, the report of the Survey Office on the White Paper is open to serious question. The whole process, from the Green Paper onwards, is in clouded and obscure language, as the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) said in an intervention.
In the McNair survey, between 40 and 45 per cent. could not understand the questions because they were so obscure. I am not suggesting that it was rigged. It was sincere and honest, but severely flawed. In fact, it is the only poll which shows low support for direct elections in 1988. Successive polls, before and since that survey, have shown increasing support for direct elections. The most recent poll carried out by Marketing Decision Research showed that 78 per cent. were in favour of direct elections. That was broken down to 53 per cent. in favour of direct elections in 1988 and confirmed the trend in other polls.
Last week, I spoke to regional and urban councillors, community organisations and trade unions. My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) will be interested to know that the only people I found on the other side of the argument were big business men, who are not often in favour of direct elections anywhere.
Some people argue that the people of Hong Kong are not ready for direct elections. I find that not only patronising, but, from my recent experience, completely untrue. The experience of election to urban and regional councils and now to district boards has already provided an excellent training ground, just as local government


elections in the United Kingdom are a good training ground for prospective parliamentarians. When there are elections to the Legislative Council in Hong Kong, I do not believe that political divisions will be polarised in the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East.
Another worry has been expressed about the effect that elections may have on confidence—the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggins) mentioned that. Such a fear is sometimes expressed by people who have shown their faith with direct elections in other countries by taking out dual nationality or refocusing their investments in those countries. However, the converse and more valid, powerful argument is the effect on confidence if the British Government are perceived as abdicating their responsibilities or if it is believed that a promise that was perceived has not been fulfilled.
I reaffirm the advantages of early elections, which I believe will give people the experience of participation in elections for the next nine years. They also provide an opportunity for consultation with directly elected people—people with a mandate. I hope that the Secretary of State will acknowledge that there has been strength of feeling expressed from all parts of the House—Liberal, Conservative and Labour Members—in favour of direct elections in 1988. Even those who did not argue for direct elections in 1988 agreed that a timetable for their introduction must be included in the White Paper. That view was unanimous.
I hope that any statement that is included in the White Paper will be clear and unequivocal so that it does not engender the kind of confusion in the mind that caused the unfortunate division of opinion between the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South and the visiting Delegation for Democracy.
In conclusion—I wish to give the Foreign Secretary time to reply to the points made in the debate—one of the essentials of one country, two systems is the existence of a pluralist democracy in the special administrative region. The overwhelming message to be carried from this debate is that we want that sooner rather than later.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
I should like to begin by saying that the debate that we have had today confirms the intensity of interest of Members on both sides of the House in the future of Hong Kong. This deep concern has been expressed by hon. Members with many different points of view.
In the context of this debate a number of what I would term "subsidiary issues" have been raised and I shall be able to deal with them only quickly.
The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who represents my old home town with great distinction, raised the question of human rights, with particular reference to press freedom and censorship. The joint declaration is explicit on the importance of that, and recent changes in the law represented the repeal of many previously rigorous censorship laws. The matter still remains under review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) asked about defence costs arrangements and he will be aware that that matter is also under review.
Apart from the central issue, the issue that aroused most concern was that of the Vietnamese refugees. My

right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made a strong argument on the matter, and he was eloquently supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad). I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup for his tribute to my concern about this matter. None of us in the House who have any familiarity with the topic can be other than deeply concerned about it.
Our record in dealing with Vietnamese refugees from Hong Kong is not as bad as all that—we have taken some 13,000 altogether. However, my right hon. Friend is right to urge us to try to do more, not only in respect of our country, but in making attempts in other directions. This is a sustained campaign to which we will remain committed, but it is not easy.
In this context, it is also right to discuss—as we are doing with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—the possible return of some of these people to Vietnam. A number of refugees are now coming from North Vietnam. The return of such people will, of course, take place only under circumstances and conditions that are likely to be acceptable.
The central question in the debate has been the place of direct elections in the future of Hong Kong. The debate has narrowed itself down to the acceptance of the proposition that the principle of direct elections is acceptable to all sides. Indeed, it is contained in the pronouncement of the People's Republic of China and the joint declaration. There is room for argument about how many and in what respect, but the key question has become when we move beyond where we have already moved in that direction. It is important to note that on that key question different views on both sides of the argument have been expressed strongly from both sides of the House. This has not been a party matter and there has been no clear-cut division. Both views have been strongly and rationally supported.
There has been reference to, or, to be more explicit, charges of, bad faith and broken promises. Those charges were dealt with most notably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker). I am grateful to him for his repudiation of those charges. Quite apart from my position and that of the Government, it would be wholly unjustified to leave such charges on the record in face of the devoted work that has been done to secure and implement the joint declaration by many people in Hong Kong outside our Civil Service and diplomatic service. Those people are entitled to have such charges repudiated.
I acknowledge the wisdom of the point made by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who said that there was no question of falsehood or concoction about the survey. It is important that that untruth should be laid without doubt on both sides of the House. There is no question of falsehood in that survey. It was undertaken honestly, and the questions were not dictated by anyone to anyone. The questions were based upon the Green Paper—perhaps not the easiest way of doing it—and it was all done in good faith. There was no constraint on that survey.
Let us consider the conclusions that many people have drawn from that analysis. It is believed that there subsists in Hong Kong—not resting on any one survey—serious and big divide in the population's views. Nobody on either side of the debate has said that there is a clear


conclusion emerging in favour of direct elections in 1988. That is the key thing. If one looks beyond the surveys and takes account of the debates in the various councils and boards in Hong Kong, it is clear, as expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South, that there is a clear division of opinion—

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Forgive me, but I have no time to give way.
One comes back to the question of the pace at which we manage this process of change. Two factors have been commended by both sides of the House: a need to take account of the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government and the responsibility of the People's Republic of China beyond 1997, and the need to take account of the aspirations of the people of Hong Kong and also the style of government thus far in the territory. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) drew attention to the particular features of Hong Kong—the surrogate democracy and the liveliness of democracy. This again suggests that the territory calls for a different conclusion from the conventional one.
The point that we come back to was made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in his opening speech, when he said that, in the process of analysis before a conclusion is reached, it is clearly not in the interests of the people of Hong Kong for decisions to be taken that are not, in the broad sense, in line with the destination commended by the People's Republic of China.
The same point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, when he said that it

would be wise not to take action in conflict with the new constitution. Such factors must be balanced against each other and account must be taken of the particular features of the Hong Kong people, society and institutions.
I am able to say no more than that the position commended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South was I gather, well supported by the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). Unfortunately, I did not hear those speeches. However, I did hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury, who also endorsed what my right hon. Friend had said.
We agree upon the proposition that in due course we need an element of direct elections—a modest proportion, but certainly not going all the way. Thus far there is agreement on both sides of the House. The question is one of timing, as was emphasised by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). On that there is a difference of views among the contributors to the debate. Even then the Opposition Front Bench and this side of the House come together. We need to secure a timetable for progress, expressed in clear and unequivocal terms. That is the message that I derived from the debate more clearly than anything else.
There can be no cast-iron guarantees about the future of Hong Kong, but that is true of any country or territory. I believe that Hong Kong is well equipped to face the future and—
It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business), further proceedings stood postponed.

British Railways (London) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

7 pm

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce the Bill, not only because I am a London Member, but, principally, because I believe it to be a very good measure. It is, after all, about improving and expanding London's transport infrastructure. Unlike the usual general powers Bills brought before the House from time to time on behalf of British Railways Board, this Bill is for the express purpose of authorising new works and improving rail services in London and the south-east.
Hon. Members will be aware that central London commuting on British Rail has increased by no less than 19 per cent. over the last four years. Off-peak travel has increased by almost one third, thanks to the Capitalcard initiative and other discounts. I also remind the House that the pattern of travel is changing significantly throughout the metropolis. Many more journeys are made around the circumference of our great capital city, particularly by road. The M25 London orbital motorway stands testimony to that.
British Rail is rising to the changes and challenges. It is making ingenious use of an abandoned railway section in the City between Farringdon and Blackfriars to link the north and the south of the Thames. From May, the Thameslink service will run from Bedford, Luton and St. Albans—I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) in his place—to the south of London and on to Sevenoaks, Gatwick airport and Brighton. That will bring many benefits and great convenience to passengers who at present have to change trains, sometimes several times, to complete those journeys.
In central London, the trains will also serve King's Cross, Farringdon and Blackfriars while the Gatwick and Brighton trains will also serve London bridge. However, the trains will not be able to serve Holborn viaduct because it is at the end of a short spur line.
There are essentially three parts of the Bill, in the sense of the works to be undertaken. Work no. 1 is to relocate Holborn viaduct station below ground on the new through route. That involves the realignment of the railway line north of Blackfriars. It is intended that the realigned route will run slightly to the east of the present line and, perhaps more important, will descend to run in a shallow tunnel under Ludgate hill.
The other points to note about the proposal are that passengers will approach the new station through the present entrance to Holborn viaduct station, as the new station will be very near the existing station, or use new entrances on Farringdon road or off Ludgate hill. The station will be fully accessible for disabled passengers. I applaud British Rail's initiative in making that a central concern and strategy of the detailed design plans.
Above the line, shop units are planned to cater for the needs of travellers. That major investment is made feasible by releasing the old Holborn viaduct station for redevelopment. All that will be beneficial for travellers and commuters, for taxpayers, for the City as a great financial

centre of the world and for the regeneration of that part of the heart of London. The new station will he named St. Paul's.
Work no. 1 also involves demolishing most of the viaduct between Blackfriars and Holborn viaduct and the removal of the bridge over Ludgate hill, thus restoring the great prospect of St. Paul's cathedral. Environmentalists everywhere will see that as a great boon. I do not intend to wax lyrical about it; I only say that, as someone who qualified as an architect, I have one other thing in common with Sir Christopher Wren, the designer of that splendid, ecclesiastical pile; he, too, was a Member of Parliament. It was realised that there might be a personality clash and it was eventually agreed between our agents that Sir Christopher would promise to make no more political speeches if I promised to design no more buildings. The arrangement has stood the test of time.
British Rail applied to the Corporation of London last September for outline planning approval. At the same time, it entered into extensive local public consultations. I understand that the planning committee will consider the application shortly. Having examined the detailed plans, and speaking as a fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute, I commend the planning application to the Committee.
The other works proposed in the Bill—

Mr. Michael Fallon: Before my hon. Friend leaves work no. I, will he elucidate further the financial implications of the development at Holborn viaduct? Unlike a public Bill, the measure that he is commending to the House has no financial memorandum I think that I understood him to say that some or perhaps all of the costs of the development would be recouped from the sale of the station and the land immediately surrounding it. Can he tell us whether the whole expenditure will be recouped or whether British Rail is financing any of the development from its other normal capital or current expenditure?

Mr. Chapman: The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important matter. I hope that I can give him all the information now. The works involved in what I will call in shorthand the Holborn viaduct section of the Bill will all be financed out of the sale for development of the Holborn viaduct station area, which is no longer needed for British Rail's purposes. It is important to stress that, if Thameslink is to become a reality, the existing Holborn viaduct station will be outdated because it will be left in limbo on a short spur and no one will use it. Everyone who wanted to get off in the area would alight at the new station.
The new station cannot be provided unless the asset of the old station is realised. The old station cannot be kept if the new station comes into being. There is no question of British Rail being able to proceed with the new station without getting rid of the unwanted old station left on the spur of the line.
British Rail has many priorities and I suspect that if it is in order we shall hear about some of them during the debate. This project will not stand above British Rail's other major priorities and it will be realised by using one of BR's assets. It could not be used for other British Rail projects, because the project would be useless unless the new station of St. Paul's, on the reopened line, comes into being.
I also wish to deal with the relatively minor, but important works related to works nos. 3 and 4.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: rose—

Mr. Chapman: I shall give way in a moment.
I shall check this fact, but, as I understand it, these works will be financed by British Rail moneys elsewhere. They are relatively small and I am sure that British Rail will confirm that they can be allocated out of the normal funds without damaging capital investment in other major projects.

Mr. Spearing: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will clarify this point now. As I understand it, the long-awaited and excellent Thameslink will come into use in May, so some trains will be running through. Will they not stop anywhere between Farringdon and Blackfriars? If they are able to go through from May, what is the pressing reason for the changes proposed in the Bill?

Mr. Chapman: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's great experience and knowledge of the area. The short answer is that, at present, there is no link between Blackfriars and Farringdon. As the hon. Gentleman says, this link will come into being in May, but there will be no station on that line between Blackfriars and King's Cross. I shall check these details in case I have inadvertently misled the House. The station would become useless to those people who presently use Holborn viaduct or who wish to alight from the new link in that area.

Mr. Greg Knight: My hon. Friend said that some of the costs, which he described as relatively small, would not be met. Will he be a little more specific? What does he mean by "relatively small"? How much money are we talking about?

Mr. Chapman: I cannot give my hon. Friend a precise answer now, but I shall seek to 'do so before the end of the debate.
I shall explain the other works, which may give my hon. Friend a better idea. The asset realised will cover work no. 1 and, if there is any excess, that may cover works nos. 3A, 3B, and 4, which I wish to describe briefly.

Mr. Fallon: I hate to press my hon. Friend on this matter, but what is the normal policy in this regard? What is the normal policy if an asset is sold in a region of the British Rail network and the sum realised is more than sufficient to replace that asset with a new development of the kind described in work no. 1? Is the surplus redistributed among other capital projects in the regions or is it retained within London or Network SouthEast?

Mr. Chapman: That is exceptional, if not unique, because it is rare that an asset is realised on the site where an improvement can be made to the British Rail network.
My hon. Friend is a much greater expert than I on these matters. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give a more authoritative answer. Normally, the money would go into the finances of the British Railways Board, which would put projects to the Department of Transport. The Minister would then approve, disapprove or amend projects and they would be allocated among the many priorities of the British Railways Board.
The minor works—I use the word "minor" advisedly—relating to works nos. 3A and 3B, aim to reopen two

short tunnels immediately to the north of King's Cross station to achieve a connection of this new Thameslink route to the south with the east coast main line running to the north-east. That will allow the Thameslink service to be increased, with local trains running from the east coast route through to the south.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Gentleman mentions linking this line to the east coast main line, as does the promoters' statement, as if the use of the east coast main line will allow some London local services to operate. Do the promoters see the link with the east coast main line as a way of providing access for passengers from the north-east into the Thameslink line?

Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. If he is a little more patient, I shall explain it to him.
Work no. 4 provides for a new escalator connection to shorten the interchange between the Thameslink platforms and the main line station at King's Cross. The main northeast line terminates at King's Cross, although some lines terminate at other stations. It would be impossible for those trains to bypass King's Cross or to continue down to the southern regions of the country because it is a normal 4 ft 8½ in gauge, but narrow width track units are being used. It is important for people from the north-east who want a quicker connection to the south-east or south of the Thames to have this much more speedy and convenient method of crossing from the main line station into the Thameslink. The escalators will do just that.

Mr. Fallon: My hon. Friend has been more than generous in giving way, but is work no. 4 a compensation for works nos. 3A and 3B? He has described the opportunities to make it easier for passengers from the north alighting at King's Cross to transfer to southern routes. Just before he introduced work no. 4, he referred to the possibility of local trains from the east coast main line moving through central London. What is the position, therefore, of east coast main line passengers arriving on the InterCity 125 at King's Cross? Are they to be discharged and to have the benefit of work no. 4 or are they also to share in the glories of works nos. 3A and 3B?

Mr. Chapman: Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The short answer is that if he goes to King's Cross and, for some inexplicable reason, does not want to go to Westminster but wishes to proceed further south, he will benefit from Thameslink, with its attendant physical and geographical tangential works, and the new escalator connection. When people using Thameslink wish to proceed further north, works nos. 3A and 3B will come into their own. They are adjacent developments. Of course, they are linked for the direct or indirect benefit of passengers. I have attempted to put the matter as concisely as possible. I can put it no more accurately.
The escalator link at King's Cross will provide other conveniences for passengers at that great station. There will also be a great benefit for passengers using the Northern, Victoria and Piccadilly lines. As High Barnet is at the end of the Northern line, it will beneficially affect some of my constituents. Because of the new escalator link, they will have direct access to the main line station.
At this stage, it is appropriate briefly to refer to the tragic conflagration that took place at King's Cross on 18 November last. I have made inquiries about the proposed


new escalators. They will provide an alternative access to and from the three London Regional Transport underground lines. Therefore, they will be an additional route that passengers may take other than going through the ill-fated ticket booking office. The detailed design of the escalators is yet to he completed. I am glad that that is so. I assure the House that they will include all appropriate fire prevention measures. Of course, they will be approved finally only after the most detailed discussions with fire services and the railways inspectorate.

Sir John Farr: Will the latest fire protection include the provision of sprinklers?

Mr. Chapman: I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question. With the greatest respect, it would be inappropriate for me to do so. I have an assurance that British Rail will take full account of any recommendations that Mr. Desmond Fennell, QC, may make following his inquiry into the King's Cross disaster. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) will agree that it is far better to wait for Mr. Fennell's report and findings rather than for me to give my view. If my hon. Friend presses me, my view is that every precaution and every modern piece of technology that is appropriate to guaranteeing maximum public safety, not least in underground areas, should be the first priority.

Mr. Greg Knight: My hon. Friend has itemised some of the benefits that will accrue to passengers from the north who alight at King's Cross station. Are there any benefits in the Bill for passengers from the north who alight at St. Pancras station? For example, is he aware that passengers from Derby are already agitated, concerned and disappointed that British Rail has made no announcement about electrification?

Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) raises an important point for his constituents. He will know that the electrification of other lines is outwith the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, I would be out of order if I were to comment on that matter. As Chipping Barnet is not on that line, I fear that my knowledge is not as good as that of my hon. Friend. If my geography remains accurate, King's Cross and St. Pancras are not many miles apart. There is an interchange between the two stations. Therefore, the escalator link will be of at least indirect benefit, if not of direct benefit, to people arriving at St. Pancras.
When the Bill was introduced into the other place, seven petitions were deposited concerning the realignment of the Holborn viaduct section. The Committee in the other place allowed the Bill to proceed, subject to British Rail giving an undertaking to Whitbreads, one of the petitioners, to return to it the freehold site of that splendid hostelry, the Old King Lud at Ludgate circus, following completion of the works. Sixteen of the 17 petitions were settled to the satisfaction of the petitioners. Four petitions have been deposited in this House by National Car Parks Ltd., Whitbreads, the City of London Real Property Co. Ltd., and Deloitte, Haskins and Sells. They were concerned about the impact of work no. 1 on adjoining property that they own or occupy.
British Rail has written to the four companies and has offered to have meetings. Indeed, meetings have been held. I am pleased to say that a settlement has already been reached with National Car Parks, and it is hoped that

settlements will be reached with the other three companies. In any event, as hon. Members know, if the House chooses to give the Bill a Second Reading, its provisions and any outstanding petitions can be considered in detail in Committee.
The Order Paper confirms that there are concerns about the Bill or about British Rail. That is not surprising;. If the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, it will he of immense benefit to many people. If hon. Members wish to pursue points that are without the scope of the Bill, or if they wish to pursue any grievances that they may have with British Rail, I respectfully suggest that it might be more appropriate to do so when the British Railways No. 2 Bill, or the general powers Bill, comes before the House. I understand that it will do so within the month.

Mr. Beith: I am grateful for that useful piece of advice, which, of course, we shall take. For a century and a half, it has been believed that grievances about railways must be ventilated when railways legislation is brought before Parliament. That belief was somewhat strengthened when some hon. Members' arguments about sleeper service:3 were greeted by British Rail's Inter-City marketing manager's insistence that he did not wish to discuss the matter with Members of Parliament.

Mr. Chapman: Obviously, I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. Having been a witness to his considerable parliamentary skills, I know that he will devise an ingenious and effective way of allowing this beneficial Bill to go through the House while pursuing his grievances in another parliamentary way.
I am sorry for taking up the time of the House. I have tried to deal with the various points that have been raised. I believe that the works represent positive, sensible steps by British Rail. The works at Holborn viaduct show great initiative and enterprise. They will benefit London and many other parts of the country, particularly the north - east. If it is passed by the House, the Bill will be good for passengers and good for British Rail.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected either of the motions relating to the instructions on the Order Paper.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I welcome the opportunity to raise briefly the issues in the Bill and to contrast the way in which British Rail seems so enthusiastic to invest in London and the south-east with its attitude to the north-west.
I did not intend to speak on the Bill, but just before: Christmas the north-west group of Members of Parliament asked for a meeting with the chairman of British Rail to discuss the deterioration in the service to the north-west. We were told that the chairman was too busy to see Members of Parliament and that we would have to make do with the midlands' director, Mr. Bleadsdale. When he met north-west Members of Parliament, he treated us with complete contempt. He came with no answers to our questions and made it clear that he was not prepared to listen to our views, but was prepared to allow the deterioration in the service to continue, and that we were a nuisance. I think that that was an insult, and British Rail must remember that if it


wants to pass legislation through the House it must be prepared to talk to hon. Members and answer their questions.
I find it amazing that British Rail can make substantial investment in London, yet every time we raise the issue of the deterioration in the service to the north-west the argument put forward is that it does not have the money to invest in that area. We have experienced a continual running down of that service. How on earth can BR talk, as it does in this legislation, of the advantages of travelling across London from north to south when it is doing its best to get rid of passengers who want to come from the north?
A similar proposal for a cross-London route was announced with a great fanfare three years ago. Trains from Manchester and Crewe, instead of arriving at Euston, were to go to Kensington Olympia and would be able to go on to Gatwick, Brighton and Dover. British Rail said that this would be a great improvement and that it required parliamentary approval for that development. It is now saying that from May it will discontinue most of those services.
The reason given for that decision is that an insufficient number of people want to use the services. There obviously have been problems, and one of the fundamental—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. At the outset the hon. Gentleman said that he would refer to the services in the north-west of which he has knowledge for contrast. He is now starting to argue the case for those services, which is out of order in the context of the debate.

Mr. Bennett: I am talking about the cross-London routes. It is perfectly all right for British Rail to tell us how desirable it is to have another cross-London route, but it is very odd that, having tried one for three years, it is now in the process of abandoning it. We must ask to what extent BR will be prepared to maintain this cross-London route, having invested a lot of money in it. I would argue that it should have invested that money in better rolling stock for the north-west and in maintaining services.
The fundamental flaw in BR's route across London was that services to the north of London had one system of electrification, while those to the south had another. A substantial amount of extra time had to be added for the changing of engines at Kensington so that trains could continue through to the south. It has been disappointed by the failure to attract passengers to that service, which is why it may be discontinuing it.
The question that we must put to the promoters of the Bill is how far they will be able to ensure that it is easy for passengers to travel on east coast lines down to the south. BR is obviously considering this improvement with a view to the Channel tunnel. There is still the fundamental problem that the railway system on the east coast line, like that on the west coast line, is incompatible with the engines that travel to the south. I hope that the promoters will tell us how they will get round that difficulty. If they cannot, I suggest to them and British Rail that it would be far better to invest the money in improving services from the north-west.

Mr. Beith: What worries me is that when British Rail is confronted with a difficulty such as the apparent incompatibility of running two services, its answer is that one of the services will have to go. That has been its

argument on sleeper services. It has said that, because there must be a transfer from diesel to electric haulage, the diesel service will have to be removed altogether. Surely that must have implications for the matters that the hon. Gentleman is describing.

Mr. Bennett: I am unaware of what British Rail is doing about the east coast sleeper service. The amazing development for the Manchester service is that BR does not intend to get rid of the whole service, but only the service in one direction. Sleepers will go up the line empty and return with passengers. British Rail says that that is more economical than having trains carrying passengers in both directions. When we asked for detailed figures, it could not produce them, which is amazing. I do not want to plead the case for sleepers too strongly—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not want to plead that case at all. As far as I can see, it has precious little to do with the Bill.

Mr. Bennett: If BR cannot maintain a sleeper service from Manchester to London, it is doubtful whether it will be able to provide a service which, in the future, will enable people to catch sleepers that will run on the east coast line through London and on to the continent. I should have thought that one of the arguments for the link would be to make travelling far easier. It is not an attractive proposition at any time to have to change stations in London if one is travelling to the south, but if one is doing it in the middle of the night, that is very unattractive.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not see anything in the Bill that relates to, connects with or has any bearing on the sleeper services of British Rail from Manchester to London. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will return to the Bill.

Mr. Bennett: If I were trying to build a link from the north to the south, which is what the Bill aims to do, one of the services that I would consider using would be sleepers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am familiar with the north of the country. He knows as well as I do that trains from Manchester to the south do not go through King's Cross.

Mr. Bennett: I accept that argument, but they do go through Doncaster. I would have thought that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would be the first to accept that it would be more attractive to catch a sleeper from Doncaster to the centre of London, and on to the continent when the Channel tunnel is open, using this route, than to wake up at 2 am or 3 am, get out at King's Cross, and transfer to Victoria, when services across London are not all that good.
The question whether sleepers will be able to run through this new link on the east coast route is relevant to the Bill. British Rail seems determined to get rid of all sleepers to the north of England—not only on the east coast route but on the west coast one—and that suggests that it does not want to run sleepers, except to Scotland. There is a good argument for it to maintain and develop its sleeper service so that, when there is a link through London and the Channel tunnel is open, it can start to use the sleeper service as a major part of a network within western Europe.
I hope that British Rail will reconsider its attitude to hon. Members and the representations that they are


making. I hope that it will reconsider its investment programme. If it can find the money for this link, and could find the money for the Kensington link, it has a duty to find the money to invest in rolling stock so that the many passengers who use its services from the north-west and north-east of England are not deterred from doing so.
Last Friday, having remained here to vote, I went to Euston and was appalled to find that the 3.20 pm to Manchester had no seats left in the first-class accommodation—fortunately, I had booked a seat—and that about 10 first-class passengers had to stand all the way to Manchester. The reason was clear. The guard, for whom I had every sympathy, made the apologetic point that British Rail did not have sufficient rolling stock.
How can British Rail consider this sort of investment when it cannot invest in the rolling stock necessary to provide a decent service from Euston to the north of England? The first priority must be to get decent rolling stock. Many commuter trains in the north-west of England provide a poor service—again because of the lack of rolling stock.
I plead with British Rail to invest in the north of England, on the east and west coasts, with the same enthusiasm as it seems to have to invest money in London. One has the feeling that British Rail's only interest is in providing a service for the people in and around London, rather than one for people such as my constituents in the north-west of England.
I shall continue to take every possible opportunity to make legislating difficult for British Rail until it accepts the fundamental principle that it should talk to Members of Parliament about the problems that face them and their constituents. British Rail should re-examine its investment programme to ensure that a good service is provided for the people from the north of England who have to come to London before it invests too much money in transporting people across London. If British Rail does not invest in transporting people from the north of England, it will find that it will have a network across London, but no passengers because they cannot afford to get there.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has taken a narrow view of the Bill. I support the Bill. But why does British Rail need to obtain powers by using the private Bill procedure? The purpose of the Bill is to execute certain works, which have been well explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman). British Rail already has a lot of legislation on the statute book and has many powers concerning the acquisition of land. I should have thought that most of what British Rail wants done could be done under existing legislation and that this Bill was not necessary. But, since British Rail has this special legislation, it will be considered, of course, and supported by many Conservative Members.

Mr. Peter Snape: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman so early in his speech. We all feel sometimes that it is an inconvenience for comparatively minor works to be the subject of a Bill. What alternative means of providing anything new does British Rail have, given that it must first seek a statutory right from the House?

Sir Trevor Skeet: A committee is ascertaining whether the procedures can be modified to enable companies to go ahead without facing the general expense of the private Bill procedure. The Bill's promoters know how expensive the procedure is, especially when there is opposition arid relevant points are raised. If a group wanted to construct Sizewell B, it could do so by way of the private Bill procedure, but it would be much better to have a public Act and obtain powers by other routes. I merely suggest that the private Bill procedure is a rather heavy instrument to use on this occasion.
Some time ago I walked through the tunnel between Farringdon and Blackfriars. I was amazed at the ease cif the route and the perspective that British Rail had shown in reopening it. The tunnel was in use in the steam days. It will be useful, to my constituents at least, to be able to travel from Bedford through to Brighton and to Gatwick.
Two motions have been tabled, although both have been ruled by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be irrelevant. They simply reflect the protests in other parts of the country and the wish for more electrification in the United Kingdom. I think that that is generally accepted. 1 praise British Rail to some extent. Although there was a year's delay in starting operation of the line from St. Pancras to Bedford, once it began it proved to be successful and a moneyspinner for British Rail. Such developments can be most useful.
When the proposed line is completed, will there be more inter-city lines from Bedford to London, perhaps going through the tunnel to Brighton and to Gatwick? Will there be faster trains to London? I assume that there will not be. Is there any prospect of a spur line from Bedford to Oakley to bring more people into London and other parts of the south-east?
My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet referred to escalators. Two weeks before the tragedy at King's Cross, I wrote to the chairman of London Regional Transport complaining about the filth of the station. Surprisingly, I did not receive a reply until after the accident—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult to see how these matters arise from or are connected with the Bill.

Sir Trevor Skeet: With all respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the transport authorities are constructing an escalator between the stations. There must be proper safety provisions.

Sir John Farr: It is critical.

Sir Trevor Skeet: It is critical: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
Even if the escalators are not made of wood, if they are not swept, as I feel happened at King's Cross and St. Pancras, an accumulation of dust could lead to greater problems for future travellers. British Rail must satisfy itself that the highest standards are introduced and maintained and that the right cleaning facilities are provided to protect the public at all times.
I give the Bill my full support. It will improve transit through London to the south-east. I hope that the provisions will be extended to cover other people such as those mentioned by Opposition Members who want certain additional work done. We hope that British Rail can secure investment from the sale of the assets that it has in mind so that there will not be too great an imposition on the taxpayer.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this important debate. We have seen from the speeches of the hon. Members for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) that the debate has national as well as local, London significance.
I declare an interest, if I need do so. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has a more direct claim than I have to the fame of being part of a long-serving, loyal, traditional railway family, but my father was a railwayman for many years. I spent many summer vacations in signal boxes, until an inspector came along and I was put quickly over the dike. My uncle and namesake, Archie Kirkwood, was a long-serving member of the National Union of Railwaymen. Sadly, he died some years ago. He was a mentor of mine, and my family's experience of trade unionism in the railway industry percolated through the fabric of our family life. I benefited from that and, if I have no other claim to speak in this debate, I feel that my family background entitles me to do so.

Mr. Fallon: May I intervene on precisely that point? The hon. Gentleman has touched on an aspect that has not yet been considered, which is the attitude of the National Union of Railwaymen to the proposals and to the differing effects of investment in different parts of the network. Has he received representations from the union?

Mr. Kirkwood: That is an extremely important point, to which I intended to refer. I must say that I am not one of the most obvious constituency Members for the NUR to contact and I do not hold that against it. I make no complaint about that because this is a major Bill — indeed, I commend the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet on the way in which he opened the debate—but one or two gaps have been left and several questions still need to be answered.
For example, what consultations were there with the NUR—a very responsible union with a direct interest in the Bill? The Bill will affect NUR staff who operate from King's Cross and, from a more strategic point of view, the investment deployed could perhaps have been deployed differently. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman or the Minister will give us the benefit of the view of the Government and British Rail on that point.
The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North made a strong point about the procedures adopted. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I serve on the Committee that considers unopposed private Bills, under your own eminent chairmanship, and I therefore have some experience of these matters. I am surprised that the British Railways board should need to have recourse to such machinery. The pressures on Back-Bench Members inevitably mean that some of these important measures do not get the attention that they deserve, and that operates to the detriment of some of the projects that come before us. I am surprised that the board does not have available to it other means of achieving the ends set out in the Bill.
That leads me to one of my other concerns about the Bill. Are any short cuts—to put it pejoratively —employed in the Bill? Does it circumvent any of the normal planning processes under the planning legislation? I ask that neutrally. I do not suggest that BR is taking short cuts

or that, if it is, it is doing so in a conspiratorial fashion. However, the House has a right to know whether this procedure circumvents any of the planning legislation.
That is an important question for local people. Local people have proper rights, obligations and opportunities to have their say and make proper and diligent representations through the planning procedures. Does the Bill deprive them of any of their rights under the planning Acts? British Rail would be well advised to ensure that it has recourse to private Bills only when it is essential.
It is obvious to everyone that King's Cross station has national significance. That is why people north of London are taking an interest in it. King's Cross is the gateway to the south. Hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of my constituents from the borders of Scotland use it—not just on business but for family outings, visits to friends and so on. The station has a direct link with the east coast route, which has a fine history and tradition. The facilities that obtain in King's Cross are vital not just to commuters who use it daily but to people from very much further afield who use it for a variety of purposes.
We are entitled to ask what inconvenience will be caused during the construction of the works. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet lucidly explained the works, and we have all had the benefit of the brief that the promoters helpfully provided—I am grateful for that—but what inconvenience will be involved? What will be the time scale? Will it be weeks, months, or, as I suspect, years? Some of the works may take many months. If that happens, how much inconvenience will those using the station suffer? Will they have to go to other parts of the concourse—with which they are familiar—to get tickets? Will large chunks of the concourse be shut off for substantial periods?
That important question was made even more important by the remarks of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, who recounted his problems on the train last Friday. I have experienced similar problems. As I explained earlier, my commitment to the railways is such that I try to use as many of my parliamentary travel warrants as possible on land-based transport. I travel to and from my constituency via the east coast route rather than traitorously using aeroplanes, which are only for softies and jet-set yuppies. The mark of a true, established, traditional Scottish Member is that he struggles through the hassle at King's Cross and sits on his suitcase for six hours and enjoys it because he knows that he is doing it for a greater cause—

Mr. John Home Robertson: For Britain.

Mr. Kirkwood: He does it for Britain, rather than taking the easy way out by drinking a gin and tonic on a 757 from Heathrow.
Congestion on the concourse at King's Cross is worrying. In the short term, congestion while the works are being completed may be relevant because it may drive custom away. I might even be driven to my gin and tonic on the 757 until the concourse is put right.

Mr. Home Robertson: I look forward to reading about the hon. Gentleman's drinking habits in the Berwickshire News and East Lothian Herald.

Mr. Kirkwood: It is always difficult when a constituent who represents another constituency is sitting at one's


elbow taking notes for one's local newspaper. I would prefer references to gin and tonic and aeroplanes to be deleted from the record. Alas, I know that that is not possible; the cat is out of the bag.
Perhaps a more serious question concerns the long-term effect on congestion on the concourse of the new escalator and the ticket office and the rest of the works planned in the Bill.

Mr. Fallon: On the question whether congestion will increase while the works are being carried out, has the hon. Gentleman yet studied clause 22? I know that his mind has been on other matters for the past week or so, but if he studies it he will discover that the compulsory purchase powers taken for the various works at King's Cross last until 1992. It is therefore possible that British Rail will carry out the works over a period of years, as the hon. Gentleman has warned, rather than over a period of months.

Mr. Kirkwood: That is an important question, and I hope that if it is not directly addressed this evening it will be addressed in Committee—although the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet may be able to elucidate.

Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) for giving way, because it may be for the convenience of the House if I deal with that point now. My understanding is—again I shall get confirmation of this — that it is anticipated that the works will take about two and a half years. It may be between two and three years—

Mr. Kirkwood: Two years?

Mr. Chapman: It will take about two and a half years from the date of the passing of the Act. I believe that it was hoped that, with Parliament's approval, work might start this May. Of course, that is now out of the question because of the length of time over which, rightly, we conduct our proceedings. I shall take further advice on that point but when I asked that question myself, I was told that it would take about two and a half years to complete all the works that are the subject of the Bill.

Mr. Kirkwood: That answer has taken me slightly aback. My initial reaction is that the works are much more extensive than the House had perhaps been previously led to understand. I do not mean that the House has been misled. Do I understand that if the works were to start immediately they would take a full two and a half years to complete?

Mr. Chapman: indicated assent.

Mr. Kirkwood: Well, that adds extra point to my fears about congestion and the temporary transitional difficulties that will accrue.

Mr. Chapman: I was careful to say, "all the works that are the subject of the Bill". The substantial and major work is no. 1, the Holborn viaduct section.
In reply to the hon. Gentleman's question about the King's Cross works and the new escalator link, I shall find out how long those works will take to complete. There would be no point in starting the works on the day the Bill becomes an Act—nor would British Rail want to do so — unless and until Mr. Desmond Fennell, QC, has reported and the proper discussions and deliberations

have taken place with the railways inspectorate and the fire service. I am sure that hon. Members will think that proper and adequate.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am grateful to the hon. Member, who is being most helpful to the House. We appreciate that. He brings me to a question relating to the extensive time scale—

Mr. Beith: Before my hon. Friend turns to the consequent question about congestion at King's Cross, I wonder whether it has occurred to him — I have only just realised this as a result of what the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said—that the time scale that is now described—from May this year until 1991—is exactly the period from which sleeper services are intended to be diverted from King's Cross to Euston up to the introduction of full electrification at King's Cross—that is to say, the date at which sleeper services could be reintroduced without any significant element of subsidy. Perhaps it was not planned that way, but it would open up the opportunity to regard the period during which the sleeper service is not there as one for reducing congestion with the hope of reintroducing sleepers as soon as the link is open.

Mr. Kirkwood: I hope that my hon. Friend's helpful comment will be taken on board by the powers-that-be. His suspicions are similar to my own. We are talking about—

Mr. John McWilliam: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kirkwood: I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McWilliam: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would direct his mind to the thought that perhaps the Bill is premature. Given the works at King's Cross, it might be better to introduce the Bill once we have the report and know the work that must be carried out there, rather than in advance of the report.

Mr. Kirkwood: I assume that that important comment relates to the fire inquiry that is being conducted by the eminent Queen's counsel. Obviously, the Bill was written before the recent tragic event at King's Cross, but has that event been considered? Suppose there are far-reaching consequences in terms of the design of escalators, safety requirements and fire requirements on the major works described in the Bill. It may well be good counsel to hasten slowly. That may not involve terminal delay. Perhaps it will involve a delay of only between six and nine months and perhaps the Bill could be brought back to the House then. It would be sad and unfortunate if the Bill went through all its parliamentary stages only to find that the report produced by the eminent Queen's counsel required substantial amendments to be made.
If that happened, can the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet tell us whether the British Railways Board would appear on the doorstep of the House to ask for further amendments to what would then be an Act of Parliament? Would the board require secondary legislation as a result of the report, because that might cost a disproportionate amount of British Rail's budget in terms of the money that has been set aside for the project? That important question requires attention and some answers in Committee. Even if the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet or the Government cannot give those answers this evening, the


House will want to know the implications of the report before it gives its final view. Of course, there will be opportunities not only in Committee, but when the Bill returns to the House on Report.

Mr. Fallon: If my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) is not prepared tonight to offer to withdraw the Bill for several months to take account of the timetabling points, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire must consider whether the Bill could at least be withdrawn for a short period so that we may prepare a more extensive Report stage, bearing in mind that the works are not urgent, and bearing in mind that other major Bills, such as the York and London Bill of the last century, were considered by the House for 82 days. Even if the Bill has to become law reasonably quickly, there is no reason why we must rush through our considerations.

Mr. Kirkwood: Eighty-two days is a long time in politics, especially if one has been in the Liberal and Social Democratic alliance during the past week.
The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) has made a good point. What is to prevent the Bill being put on ice? In terms of parliamentary procedure, presumably it would be possible to stage it over from one parliamentary term to another. I am an inexperienced hand at the parliamentary game, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think that it is possible that there is some procedure for staging over a private Bill until the next Session. We had experience of that with the Channel Tunnel Bill, which was a hybrid Bill. This is a purely private Bill. There is nothing to stop us stopping the clock of parliamentary procedure on the Bill until we can see whether there are implications—and there are certain to be implications—as a result of the safety report by the eminent Queen's counsel who has been charged with the responsibility of investigating the causes and long-term effects of the King's Cross disaster. I hope that that important point will be given serious consideration.
I return to the point that I was about to make, having heard that the works will take two and a half years to complete. That suggests that the works are of an entirely higher level than I had anticipated, and that leads me to the question of cost. Although the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet was comprehensive, helpful and lucid in his introduction, he left out the question of the total cost. I listened carefully to his remarks and he said that the cost would more or less be met by the disposal of other assets on the site.
It would be helpful to know the gross or, indeed, the net sums involved. A course of public works over a two-and-a-half-year period will involve a different level of expenditure. If it is true, it brings into a new perspective the arguments that were deployed earlier by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish about the respective and relevant merits of investment on the south-eastern route, let alone the east coast route. I can tell the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish that there is life well north of Manchester.
We need more detail on costs. The House is entitled to know how much money will be spent in every category of the expenditure—not only the money being set aside for investment, but the money that it is hoped will be made from the sales of assets. What is the state of play on those

sales? Have brochures and prospectuses been made ready? Are the heritable items that are the subject of these disposals ready to be put on the public market? What is their asking price? All these details are relevant so that the House can decide whether we are getting value for money for this significant investment in the four works, which will take two and a half years to complete. We need more information on costs before we make any definitive judgments.
I heard what the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said about the extent of the usefulness of the line as a link. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that trains running over the route will be running through tunnels. Presumably those tunnels are many, but they are too narrow to take the InterCity 125 trains. The gauge is different—

Mr. Chapman: I told the House that the gauge was the normal 4 ft 8½ in, but the coaches are the narrow-width type because of the size of the tunnels and because of the bends.

Mr. Kirkwood: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about the bends—I have been suffering from them for the past week in my party.

Mr. Spearing: It might be useful to clear up this point now. There is an abiguity about the word "gauge". There is a gauge for the width of lines and a loading gauge. We are not yet clear whether the new tunnels in King's Cross will be wide enough—wider than the existing ones—to take not only 125s but also, perchance, sleeping cars.

Mr. Kirkwood: I see we have a plethora of railway buff talent in the House and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his help. What he said clarifies matters, but it leads me to another question.
The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet may say that the cost would be astronomic, but how much would a direct link from the east coast route cost? The hon. Gentleman may say that the sums have been done and that countless millions of pounds are involved; I accept that a cost-benefit analysis must be done. However, if the tunnels have merely to be slightly widened in order to allow the rolling stock through, doing that might not be beyond the realms of commercial possibility in the long term.
In view of what has been said about the Channel tunnel, and the opportunity that it would provide for commercial return and for passengers, the question is interesting. Have any calculations been done of what it would cost to make a direct link? The figure may be impossibly high—we are not unreasonable people and we would accept figures on the commercial viability of such a project if they were produced — but we cannot think that we are conscientiously representing our constituents if we do not at least ask that question so that a judgment can be made.
If it is too expensive to widen the tunnels, as may be the case, what is the possibility of co-ordinating timetables so that people coming from Berwick-upon-Tweed can get off at Stevenage, for example, and take a train that would take advantage of the link? What active consideration has been given to that eventuality so that people coming from Berwick-upon-Tweed would not need to go near the terminal station at King's Cross, but could link through in a co-ordinated fashion without changing there?

Mr. McWilliam: Would the hon. Gentleman care to reflect on the problems of freight from the north? If the


tunnels and the loading gauge are not such as to be able to take freight from the north, there is no advantage to the vast areas of this country in allowing the Bill to pass. Freight is of the essence in the economics of opening up the tunnels to national use. If we cannot receive the assurances that we would like on freight access, there is no reason why the House should pass the Bill.

Mr. Kirkwood: I was coming to that point, and I shall reinforce and underline it now. Freight is an essential part of the viability and continuing prosperity of the east coast route. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet may not know — the Minister will—that important freightliner depots just outside Edinburgh have recently been closed. A route such as this could have saved the depots and made them commercially viable. That is how important having a direct route is, rather than an indirect link such as the Bill proposes.
I return to my point about co-ordinating timetables for passenger journeys. How far up the east coast route does the ability to link through the tunnel go? I assume that passengers from places such as Stevenage, Huntingdon and Peterborough can go all the way through the link. How far up the route is it proposed that the service will extend—past Doncaster, as far as York, to Darlington or even the nether reaches of Newcastle and beyond? How far down the east coast route will people be able to get on British Rail trains that will take them directly through the route that is proposed in the Bill?
As regards commercial viability, British Rail tells us a great deal about the new ethos that now prevails in its commercial judgments. We are told a great deal about ratios of profitability, investment returns and so on. I did not hear the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet say anything about the commercial return that is expected on the investment. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and the sums must be done. The House is entitled to know what money it can expect in return for this substantial two-and-a-half year building investment.

Mr. Beith: It is also true that we have heard nothing about the revenue implications of the investment that we are discussing. There seems to be an assumption running through the debate that the project is viable in terms of capital invested because of the return on the land. There has been no reference to whether passengers using the route will be receiving a public subsidy in order to do so.

Mr. Kirkwood: I agree with my hon. Friend. The commercial return is closely linked to the terms of the subsidy—if there is to be any. Some hon. Members are worried about the disparities in the subsidies between one route and another and one area and another. The hon. Member for Darlington and other hon. Members advanced cogent arguments about the disparity in the subsidies that are applied per passenger journey in different parts of the rail network. These are all important matters.
The aims of the Bill are set out in the brief supplied by the promoters. The Bill seeks powers to alter the alignment of the railway. Among other things, the Bill seeks to replace Holborn viaduct and to provide a through bus interchange and better access for taxis, especially for disabled passengers. That is an important part of the Bill's provisions. From my own experience, I commend British

Rail for its improvements to stations, especially main-line stations, and to Waverley station in Edinburgh and the Glasgow stations.
To a certain extent, British Rail has not made sufficient provision for services for the disabled and has spoiled the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar. I hope that British Rail will pay careful attention in this major development to providing facilities that will enable disabled people to travel without let or hindrance. That is an important matter that must be considered.
The safety aspects of the escalator that will provide a quicker alternative at King's Cross for Thameslink and underground passengers was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North. I am also concerned about that. I was a bit uncertain about the detail of the objections mentioned by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. I think he said that 17 objections had been lodged in the House of Lords.

Mr. Chapman: Seventeen petitions.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that correction. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet skated over those. It follows from what I said earlier about the planning Acts that the position of objectors is crucial. The hon. Gentleman dealt with some of the petitions, and the sponsors' brief tells us that there are four petitions on the Bill. I was left in some uncertainty about the precise state of the 17 petitions in the House of Lords.

Mr. Chapman: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to recall that I said that 17 petitions were presented in the other place. Of those, 16 were settled and a recommendation was made about the 17th, which I shall refer to in shorthand as the Whitbread petition. Four petitions were presented to this House and one has been settled. Three are outstanding and are at an early stage of being considered. Negotiations are continuing. The three outstanding ones include the Whitbread petition.
I hope that the Bill is given its Second Reading. If it is, those three petitions, if they are still unsettled, will be dealt with under the procedures of the House by the Committee examining the Bill. There is no question of the House not being able to pass judgment, to make its view known or to impede the progress of the measure if it is not satisfied with the settlements that are made, not made or undetermined on the three outstanding petitions. It is quite possible and, according to precedent, likely to be the case that the three outstanding petitions will be settled—as were 16 of the 17 petitions in the other place—before the Bill reaches Committee, even if it is given a Second Reading.

Mr. Kirkwood: That intervention was extremely helpful and substantially sets my mind at rest. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech and was unclear, but his intervention somewhat alleviates my worries. I would not like it to be thought that I am antipathetic to the Bill and I do not want to do anything to impede its progress. Deloitte Haskins and Sells and firms like Whitbread can look after themselves and their property interests are important. They have the right to make their protests and representations in their own way and in their own time. I am quite happy to let that happen and I do not want self-interest to impede the Bill. However, I was worried about the number of petitions in the other place, but what the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said about that clarifies my mind on the issue.

Mr. Jack Thompson: The hon. Gentleman has spoken about the petitions submitted to this House. The petitions could include what is described in the promoters' statement as
the comprehensive and sensitive redevelopment of the prime area to the west of St. Paul's Cathedral.
Hon. Members will know that for the last few months this has been a most contentious issue. The sensitive development of that area is of prime importance not only to the people of London but to people all over Britain.

Mr. Kirkwood: I entirely subscribe to that view. That was a helpful intervention and if the hon. Gentleman has any other thoughts I should be happy for him to share them with the House.
I was talking about petitions and objections. I do not think that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet told us what the Camden borough planning department had to say about this Bill. It would be of interest to the House to know whether it was negative, positive or antipathetic to this proposal. That is an important issue and it is part of the democratic duty of Camden borough to comment on that.
Earlier, I spoke about the difficulties of defining the interface between this parliamentary procedure and the planning Acts. What is the view of Camden borough planning department? Does British Rail know, or has it asked? If it has asked, I and the House would like to know the reply.
The London Regional Passengers' Committee also deserves to be consulted in this process. I am not an expert about the duties and responsibilities of British Rail in this context. I understand the parliamentary procedure in the House, but it would be remiss of the House if it did not ask what bodies such as the London Regional Passengers' Committee feel about this. Is it antipathetic to the proposal, or does it support the proposal as a positive benefit to the people it represents? The House would like to hear about that.
The Bill considers the possibility of opening railway lines. That is good, and I am in favour of it. I hope that it catches on, because some hon. Members could make a few suggestions about it. The Borders have never recovered from the stupid and incompetent closure in the 1960s of the Waverley line. That had a dramatic and traumatic effect on the communities in the south-east of Scotland. Railway lines can have good or bad effects on communities.
My fervent hope is that the measure will eventually go ahead, and I hope and believe that it will have a positive effect. The House would be derelict in its duty tonight if it did not pose questions such as we have heard so far in the debate, and received realistic answers which it was prepared to accept, before allowing a measure of such magnitude to proceed. Against that background, I am happy to commend the Bill's Second Reading to the House.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): There have been one or two references to the events of the past few days. If the alliance returns from "Voices and Choices" to give 42 minutes to a Bill that it supports, heaven help the rest of us if we ever become involved in public debate with its members in the next general election.
We have considered the content of the Bill, and have no objection to the powers sought by the British Railways Board. Indeed, we support the Bill's aims. We note that it will enable the board to provide a new, modern station on the Thameslink line. Starting later this year, commuter services will run directly between north and south London for the first time since the first world war. We have told the board that we will always support worthwhile investment to enhance the quality of service to the passenger, and this is such a case. We approved the necessary investment for the scheme in December.
The proposed new station will be funded by redevelopment, with the private sector, of the Holborn viaduct site. We are pleased to see that the board is involving the private sector in this way, in line with our requests that it should broaden the participation of that sector in the development of its property.
I hope that the House will support the Bill and enable the British Railways Board to carry out this exciting and worthwhile development. The Department of the Environment has one outstanding point on the Bill, on which negotiations are continuing with the promoters. It is hoped that the matter will be resolved satisfactorily.

Mr. Beith: I hope that the Minister will forgive me if he is about to deal with this point. However, I hope that he will give us a Government view about the prospects for through running from the east coast main line through Thameslink, and about the value or otherwise of British Rail's providing an interlinking service at this point. That must surely have played some part in the decision on whether the investment should proceed.

Mr. Bottomley: It did not. One of the differences about the present Government is that we set objectives for British Rail and then expect it to carry them out. Business interests that have petitioned against the Bill will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee. The Committee will be able to examine in detail the issues involved, and will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence.
I recommend to the House that the Bill be given a Second Reading, and allowed to proceed to Committee for such detailed consideration.

Mr. Peter Snape: Let me first congratulate the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) on the detailed and comprehensive way in which he moved the Second Reading. I do not know whether this is the first Bill for which the hon. Gentleman has had responsibility, but I am sure that it will not be the last, given the detailed way in which he explained it for us.
The first and most serious point that I should make, particularly in response to the hon. Gentleman's speech, is that I support all that he said about new escalators at King's Cross. All of us were appalled and horrified by the tragedy of 18 November. I know that whatever criticism may be levelled at the management of British Rail or, for that matter, that of London Regional Transport—I am never "behind the door", as the saying goes, in levelling such criticism myself — the lessons of that appalling tragedy will be learnt, and that new escalators, incorporating all the necessary fire prevention devices that are available, will ensure that it is not repeated.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on his epic speech. As the Minister said, for the Liberal party to support a Bill and take 42 minutes to tell us so—

Mr. Beith: Front Benchers always take 42 minutes.

Mr. Snape: They do not, as I shall show the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
There are exciting times ahead for the Liberal party, and I hope that, although his speech of support might be a little shorter than that of his hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will do nothing to detract from his prospects in the competition to which we all look forward with such enormous interest. If I can do anything to assist him, he need only ask.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who explained that he had to leave early tonight, had some valid and trenchant points to make about cross-London railway traffic in the context of the Bill. I think that we would all regret the lack of success of the north-south services which were diverted through Kensington Olympia. There are reasons for that, which we hope will not be repeated with these new services.
The service to which my hon. Friend referred in detail was started up along a fairly old railway line, which British Rail's management had been unwise enough to run down considerably. The speed of the trains, most of which are to be withdrawn in the May timetable, averages about 44 mph, which hardly provides any marketing appeal in the latter part of the 20th century. We hope that average speeds on the new link line will be considerably higher.
I think that I can prejudge at least part of the Minister's reply, particularly in regard to the InterCity prospects for the new tunnel—

Mr. Spearing: It is not a new tunnel.

Mr. Snape: As my hon. Friend accurately, if somewhat pedantically, reminds me, it is not a new tunnel. It was closed as long ago as the first world war. The new services to the old tunnel will be confined to local trains, because of the problems with the width of the loaded gauge. I do not know whether the Minister has the figures that were requested by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire about the cost of doing a proper widening job on the tunnel to allow InterCity services to pass through, but the House would be interested if they were available.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Kensington Olympia link, which is used as a link through London. He seemed to imply that it had not been successful and might disappear. I am sorry to hear that, because I had not realised it. My wife travelled on the line recently, and found it a useful service. She did, however, come across a group of passengers who had alighted from a plane from Nigeria at Gatwick, and were now at Milton Keynes still hoping to reach Victoria.

Mr. Snape: I do not know whether the Bill will offer them much consolation. I do not suppose that, having embarked on such a journey, they would be over-impressed with the link via Kensington Olympia either. As I have said, I think that its lack of success was partly due to the short-sightedness of previous railway managements who ran it down. As there is only one platform available for the trains, if one train runs late—as occasionally

happens, even with an average speed of 44 mph — it must wait outside the station if any other train going in either direction is occupying that platform.
One of the problems behind the introduction of Bills such as this is that London suffers from the rabid competition of the old railway companies 150 years ago. It may be a salutary lesson—I do not expect the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet necessarily to agree with me, although he will probably do so secretly—that such unbridled competition all those years ago necessitates the sort of Bill that we have before us. However, the Government are planning to unleash such competition on Monday in relation to road transport in the next two or three years. I hope that Conservative Members who tell us about the supposed benefits of unbridled competition like some ritual incantation will remember the problems when they are next tempted to throw their somewhat infantile ideology around the Chamber.
In one of his many interventions, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) asked about receipts from the land development mentioned in the Bill. That is a valid point. The problem with sectorisation in British Rail is that often, and for understandable reasons, sector directors, having acquired receipts, are unwilling to release them to other sectors.
The balkanisation of what should be a national railway system should be resisted. I am not suggesting that the hon. Member for Darlington ought to resist it himself, because, perhaps unlike the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, he has enormous ambitions which will no doubt be realised during a long and distinguished parliamentary career. The fact that sector directors do not like parting with receipts leads to difficulty. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet can answer that point, but it is a matter which we should like explained.
As for the marathon speech of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, I had not realised that he was so well connected, so to speak, in railway terms. Like his uncle, I am a member of the National Union of Railwaymen. I am glad to say that his uncle had a reputation for brevity, which the hon. Gentleman does not share. His uncle was much more sensible with regard to politics as well. Nevertheless, we welcome converts from wherever they may come. Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe them as enthusiasts. I am sure that, given his railway background, provided that he renounces those false political doctrines that he has embraced for some years, and if things get too rough for him in that group of Kilkenny cats that he belongs to at the moment, the hon. Gentleman might be welcome elsewhere. He could join the calm and placid listening party which I have the honour to represent.
The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) referred to the improved services to his constituency as a result of what Sir Peter Parker called and which continues to be known as—the bedpan service. He will acknowledge the good fortune of his constituents which will arise out of the Bill—good fortune which is unlikely to be shared by passengers from further north because of the apparently insurmountable problems associated with passing InterCity trains in the tunnel.
We have heard the good suggestion that we should look at the timetable to see whether, instead of passengers having a cross-London journey necessitating a change to the underground to get from one terminus to another, provision could be made at Bedford or Stevenage, or


wherever else BR thinks would be most suitable, for InterCity passengers to change to modern electric multiple unit trains such as it is envisaged will travel from Bedford to Croydon, Gatwick airport or Brighton. It is well worth exploring that idea. I hope that BR management, which is not always adept at snatching business opportunities, will listen to what I think appears to be an eminently sensible suggestion, which would benefit a considerable number of passengers.
There are a number of outstanding matters which the Opposition would like to pursue, but, as your predecessor in the Chair reminded us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a general powers Bill is to follow — the debate on which will enable most of us to get most of our moans about BR management off our chest. We can talk then about the missing, diverted and empty sleeping-car trains — the new ghost trains of the modern railway.
While the Opposition welcome the Bill, we want the Minister to know that our misgivings about these other matters will receive a full airing when that Bill comes before us. If he is charged with taking it through the House, he will have a rougher ride than he has had tonight.

Mr. Neville Trotter: I should like to give some background to the Bill. The House is aware that the railways took powers a little while ago to construct Thameslink and run trains from the midland main line at St. Pancras to the southern side of the Thames. I should like to consider those powers in the Bill which will link that system, which is now under construction and nearly open, to the east coast main line at King's Cross. They are works nos. 3A, 3B and 4, and also involve clause 11.
I find it surprising that there is little in the notes that the promoters have circulated about the powers being sought at King's Cross. There is considerable reference in the notes to the works at Holborn to build a new station on Thameslink. We are told that those works will provide a direct connection between Bedford, Luton and St. Albans to the north, and south London, Gatwick airport, Brighton and Sevenoaks to the south; in other words, there will be services right down to the south coast. As for works nos. 3A, 3B and 4, there is no explanation of the sort of service that it is proposed to run through that link. It is unfortunate that we were not told before Second Reading the aims of three of the four works in the Bill.

Mr. Fallon: Does that not reinforce something that has emerged throughout the debate? I refer to the inadequacy of the information that accompanies the Bill. Had this been a Government Bill, we would have had a financial memorandum outlining the expenditure and detailing the cost to be defrayed on the works, and we would have had an explanatory memorandum giving much greater detail of the powers sought and the works to be undertaken. Should the promoters not now consider whether a much fuller statement should be given? Should there not be details of costs of each work and, who knows, maps and plans as well?

Mr. Trotter: I entirely agree. I was amazed that we were not supplied with that information. I hope that the matter can be put right.
If we read the proceedings in another place, where the Bill started life, we find that the sponsor, Lord Marshall

of Leeds, explained that works nos. 3A, 3B and 4 are needed to connect the Thameslink direct to the east coast main line. Lord Taylor said that many people would use the service, which would establish an essential link to the rail service north of the border. He described it as an imaginative and energetic example of the management of British Rail. Many of us who have occasion to use the east coast service would not describe the management of BR as energetic and imaginative on the basis of recent experience.
It has been made quite clear, however, that the works at King's Cross are in connection with establishing a link with the east coast main line. There were many references in the other place to the large number of people who would join the main-line services from King's Cross to the north of England and to Scotland as a result of the proposed link through the Thames tunnel.
I was interested in comments earlier in the debate about the narrow gauge of the tunnel. It could not be the track, for it would have been of little use indeed if that were the case. One cannot help asking, however, what used to go through the tunnel when it was previously used. I am sure that the tunnel was not used by special freight trains in the old days. There were not special narrow wagons to pass through it.
A great opportunity will be lost if main-line passenger trains do not pass through the tunnel in future. We are led to suppose that specially thin or specially shortened trains will be built for the service, but we have been given no information on that. We do not know where these trains will come from or where they will go. With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), I do not think that there is a station at Chipping Barnet. However, I suspect that there are stations close to Chipping Barnet. Will trains passing through the tunnel go as far as Stevenage and Peterborough, or will they go all the way to Newcastle and Edinburgh? Where will they go in the other direction? Will they go to the south coast, or will they stop somewhere in south London?

Mr. Fallon: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary that such a Bill should be promoted for works that will last for two and a half years, involving the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of pounds, yet we have not been told by the promoters whether the tunnel will take 125s or whether it will accommodate freight trains?

Mr. Trotter: That is absolutely right. I am certain that the tunnels will not take 125s, because the new service will be electrified. A great opportunity will be lost if the link is not constructed in such a way that it can be used by through main-line trains. Perhaps there is a need to iron out the bends in the tunnel as well as in the Bill. It would certainly be more sensible for a proper long-distance through service to be provided through the tunnel.
Reference has been made to the link to the southern region from the west coast main line. I had hoped that the aim now was to provide a similar service from the east coast main line. The east coast main line is of great historical importance. The first sleeping car ran on the line from King's Cross in 1873. As far as I know, that event has not been celebrated by the present management of British Rail, and, sadly, we face losing this service in the near future.
I believe that there are doubts about the future of King's Cross and over important parts of the east coast main line service. It is amazing that we are being asked to give a Second Reading to a Bill to deal with the interchange of large numbers of passengers between the Thameslink service and the east coast main line, yet we do not know the details of the future service on the east coast main line.
Recently, as one of its initial excuses for removing the east coast sleeping car services, British Rail said that Euston was a superior station to King's Cross for passengers to use. Obviously, if King's Cross is so inferior, we must sort out the inadequacies there. I do not believe that the provisions in the Bill will tackle the inadequacies. We need a more thorough re-examination of the position at King's Cross.
Does the future of King's Cross justify the works set out in the Bill? Will they be sufficient to improve King's Cross to provide an adequate level of facilities, which British Rail clearly feels are at present inadequate, in the light of the action that it has taken in respect of the overnight services? My colleagues from the north are well aware that Lord Taylor's description of the management of British Rail as "imaginative" and "energetic" is not a fair description of our recent experience in connection with services to the north-east. Indeed, I would say "insensitive" and "negative" are more accurate descriptions. There has been a refusal to accept the inadequacies of the proposed changes for the most important overnight services, and that is clearly relevant to what we are now talking about.
British Rail seems prepared to lose its share of the overnight market and has refused to reconsider its plans, which I believe calls into question its judgment as well as its public relations. That must make us doubt whether the plans behind the works in the Bill have been well thought out and considered.
I want to give an example of the inadequacy of the marketing on the east coast main line. The present overnight return fare from King's Cross to Newcastle is 149. I was astonished to find that the fare to Edinburgh is only £109 for the overnight journey, and the Edinburgh journey is 50 per cent. longer than that to Newcastle. To add insult to injury, I understand that one can leave one's car for a week at Waverley station. One would be lucky to get away with leaving it for one day at Newcastle.

Mr. Home Robertson: One would be lucky to get a place.

Mr. Trotter: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I am, however, advised that the facility is offered at Edinburgh.
One of our great criticisms in the north-east about the service out of King's Cross at present is the complete lack of marketing and initiative that has been shown by the east coast management with regard to the overnight services. We are being asked to incur a great deal of money in this Bill on major works at King's Cross when the management appears to be unable to market the product that it already possesses.
In the near future there will be 400 miles of main line from Kings Cross on which, for the first time in history, there will be no overnight service. The sleepers will go and people coming out of the interchange with Thameslink to use the sleepers will find that the overnight sleeping trains

have been removed. We must doubt whether the sums on which the plan was prepared and is now put to the House are still accurate.

Mr. Beith: Another possibility that is closed off by that decision is that at the moment newspaper contracts go north from King's Cross. There might even be a facility for loading the papers closer to the centres where the papers are produced through the use of the link line. However, British Rail seems to be surrendering completely.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Before the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) pursues that point, I remind him that we are dealing with work in London. It would be out of order for the debate to stray beyond that.

Mr. Trotter: As I said at the beginning, we are being asked to give a Second Reading to a Bill a large part of which concerns the provision of a link between the service under the Thames and that from King's Cross to the north. If we consider only one half of that link, the House cannot properly consider the Bill. I would certainly not want the Bill to receive its Second Reading tonight on that basis.
The carriage of newspapers is interesting, even if that only happens between Holborn and King's Cross—to keep the point within the context of London. We may allow our imagination to look further afield. The whole question of sector costing must be considered carefully. The Select Committee on Transport, on which I have the honour and pleasure to serve, drew attention in its report on the railways to its concern over this type of case
where InterCity … in an attempt to shed costs, moves its services away from lines or stations which it might more sensibly continue to use.'
That has been happening with the east coast main line. The removal of the overnight passengers to Euston, or more likely to the competing air services, will mean that those passengers will no longer help to fund the movement of newspapers, post or parcels on the east coast main line. These services will in turn become less competitive and a vicious circle will be created as a result of the odd costing between various sectors of British Rail.
Before we proceed with the Bill, it is important to know the long-term plans for the service out of King's Cross. It is ridiculous to suggest that there should be a link for passengers using those services if we do not know what plans there are for the future. While it has been suggested by British Rail that King's Cross is an inadequate station for passengers to use at night, the latest reason for removing the overnight services is that the diesel locomotives needed to run it are so worn out and expensive that they can no longer be justified, and that electrification is the answer.
We are being asked to agree a system of works that will link up at King's Cross with the now being electrified east coast main line. The argument now advanced for using electric trains from Euston will be removed by the electrification of the route from King's Cross to the northeast and Edinburgh. There will no longer be any need to use clapped-out expensive diesel locomotives. Indeed, if those overnight trains continue to run from Euston rather than from King's Cross, not only will the passengers not have the advantage of the link to the Thames, but several of the clapped-out, expensive diesel engines will have to be maintained to run the service on from the electric wires at Carstairs to Edinburgh.
There is thus a strong argument in favour of returning the Edinburgh service to King's Cross after electrification in only two years' time. That would bring more passengers to King's Cross and more people would use the works that we are asked to agree tonight. That would be logical, but however obvious and sensible it might be, British Rail has refused to give a commitment and we are left in complete doubt about the future. It is no good saying that the alternatives that British Rail has suggested will be adequate.

Dr. David Clark: To substantiate the point that the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr.Trotter) is making about the type 47s and the switching of trains from Carstairs to Edinburgh, when the point was put to British Rail about running the type 47 from Carlisle to Newcastle, it said that it was too expensive. The point that the hon. Gentleman is making about the link is quite right.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Carlisle and Newcastle are a long way from London. The debate must be directly related to London, as that is what the Bill is about.

Mr. Trotter: I am talking about people who want to go from the middle of London up to the north using the service at King's Cross. That is what the Bill is about. People want to get to King's Cross on the link line at night, so that they can go home. On the railways' present plans, they cannot do that. I believe that this should be put right.
People who wish to make an overnight journey to Newcastle now have to go to Euston instead, without, of course, being able to use the link line. They must then go all the way to Edinburgh and back to Newcastle — a total of 525 miles instead of 268. In the other direction, they must leave home at 5 o'clock in the morning to get there in time for their engagement. That is wholly unsatisfactory. One of the most astonishing features of the management of British Rail is that it has failed to accept that this is unsatisfactory. This throws doubt on the judgment of the senior management of British Rail.

Mr. Fallon: What would the position be if one of my hon. Friend's constituents wanted to return from a meeting in Holborn and be at an early-meeting on Tyneside in the centre of Newcastle? If he could not use the link and had to travel by that circuitous route through Euston and Edinburgh, what time would be available to him for the meeting at Tyneside?

Mr. Trotter: He would have to get off the sleeper in Edinburgh at dawn, to catch the first train to the northeast from Edinburgh. It is astonishing that one of the senior managers of British Rail was quoted as saying,
He could enjoy … the view on the way.

Mr. Snape: That gentleman said:
He could enjoy a great British breakfast and the view along the way.

Mr. Trotter: That is the full quote. The person concerned would arrive in Newcastle at 8.30 am, provided that he got up in Edinburgh at 6 o'clock.

Mr. Beith: Assuming that the sleeper was not late.

Mr. Trotter: We are talking about an unknown quantity of money for work at King's Cross, and it is difficult to see the costs in context.
The energy wastage by British Rail on the eastern region is said by its energy manager to be £7 million a year.
I do not know whether the cost of these works will be more or less than that. Losses on the sleepers have been variously estimated at £1 million, £700,000, £500,000, £355,000, £250,000 and £200,000. If we keep up the pressure they may disappear altogether. However, British Rail's determination to close the service at night and prevent people from Holborn or elsewhere in London making an overnight journey to the north-east has been unchangeable.
The Transport Users Consultative Committee takes an interest in all passenger services, whether from Holborn or from King's Cross. Both the north-east committee and the national committee are concerned about British Rail's proposals on this issue.
The link envisaged in the Bill must raise the question of through trains to the continent. On the very day that the other place passed the Channel Tunnel Bill, it gave consideration to the Bill before us tonight. Many hon. Members who come from the north-east agreed wih the construction of the Channel tunnel only because we envisaged a through rail service from the north. We already suffer from the north-south divide. It is essential that we have proper rail communication in Britain. A through service by rail to the continent will be essential in future.
I had hoped that this Thames tunnel would be an ideal way of providing such a service from the eastern parts of England down under London and through to the continent. Are we to be deprived of that opportunity? Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet will be able to tell us whether there is a possibility of a service through the tunnel to the Channel tunnel. We should know whether British Rail is considering that.
Hon. Members have referred to other through services in London. Those services have been reasonably successful, whatever the Opposition may say about the slow speed of such trains. I do not believe there is any need for the overall speed to be as low as it is. I suggest that any slugishness is due to these trains being badly routed elsewhere than through west London. I hope that the new link will mean we can do better in the future.
There is to be a new, experimental, sleeping car train that will run from Edinburgh to Poole that will go 180 miles off the main electrified line. I do not know where the money has been found to pay for that service. I should have thought that there were far fewer people wishing to travel overnight from Poole to Edinburgh than there were wishing to travel from King's Cross through to Newcastle. Will that costly new service use the tunnel? I do not believe that it will, but my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet should tell us.
Earlier in the year, the director of InterCity referred to the closing of two uneconomic night routes, one of which was the service from King's Cross up the main east coast line. He went on to say—I believe that his words were rather unfortunate—that InterCity planned to add four new ones. I do not know whether he intended that remark to merit my interpretation, but I believe that a service such as that from Poole to Edinburgh — whether it goes through Holborn or not — is likely to be far less successful than the services that we are to lose from King's Cross.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Has the hon. Gentleman taken account of the fact that the distortions that already exist


in fares, particularly on some of the services that we suffer on the east coast, may be applied to services down to places such as Poole?

Mr. Trotter: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Earlier I referred to the incredible lack of marketing. The impression formed by many is that a decision was taken to withdraw the service from King's Cross up the east coast line and that more passengers would be an embarrassment and get in the way of taking that service off.
I do not know whether it is intended to run lounge cars on the Thameslink. I was astonished to read that 31 lounge cars are to be introduced on the overnight sleepers from Euston and elsewhere. It seems that the idea is that business men will spend half the night drinking gin and will then get up before dawn to have breakfast. I believe that providing and running these cars is an astonishing use of money. One cannot help but wonder whether the cost of hauling those 31 lounge cars over Shap and the rest of the system will be fully remunerated out of profits on the gin or the breakfast.
I believe that there are grave doubts about the present management of the British Rail InterCity system. Those doubts are relevant tonight, because one of the aims of the Holborn link is to feed passengers to InterCity services. Before we agree this Bill we need to be satisfied about the plans for future services out of King's Cross that are intended to he used by those coming from Holborn on the link. We need to know the complete plans for the future of the station and the services out of it.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am inclined to support the Bill, but I wish to ask a number of questions. I believe that a number of anomalies have appeared in the course of this valuable debate.
My first hesitation is that the Bill appears to accede to the Government principle—confirmed by the Minister—that substantial investment by British Rail in new routes, new lines—or, to be more accurate, reopened lines—will be paid for only by some form of localised property development. I cannot stomach that doctrine. The Minister may look puzzled, but I understand that that is the policy in many parts of London and in particular in respect of extensions to the docklands light railway. By the time I have finished my speech it will be clear that such a Government policy has also been adopted for other extensions, not only in London but elsewhere. If it is not, I shall he glad to hear from the Minister later by letter.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who thinks that I am being pedantic, but these are not new routes. They are routes which are being reopened and refurbished. Tunnels built in the 19th century are being reopened. Although the railway routes that the trains will use may be new, the works themselves, with one exception, are not new railways. Therefore, I am not being pedantic. A principle is involved. The House is not being asked to authorise a new route.
I sympathise with the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) who is interested in the east coast main line. Many Londoners use that line. I shall not dwell on the topic at length, because it does not come within the scope of the Bill, except that British Rail wants to run it almost as a semi-commuter railway, certainly as far as Grantham,

which British Rail boasts is now part of London's commuterland. It appears that British Rail wants to squeeze out other services, particularly sleeper services, which seems to be an extraordinary decision.
Even more extraordinary is the lack of assistance for the Kensington route, which is a cross-London route. We heard about that from my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I am sorry that British Rail has not persisted with that route, because it has the advantage of no loading gauge problems. One would have expected British Rail to persist with the welcome cross-London services which it started. Perhaps those services could go faster, but they were an innovation. It will be disadvantageous to the image of British Rail if they are cut after May.
I wish to ask some questions of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) about Snow hill in particular. That is the site of the main work and there is a proposal to abandon and, in effect, rebuild the Holborn viaduct terminal. The Snow hill route was used in the postwar period, particularly for goods traffic going through London. It has been closed relatively recently, much to the chagrin and criticism of many railway-minded people.
I thought that there was a Snow hill station. Why could not that be refurbished relatively quickly at a fairly low cost? Why was that not done for the service which is to start in May to give access to Holborn viaduct to people coming through on the widened lines?

Mr. Jack Thompson: I bow to my hon. Friend's knowledge of the area. Can he tell us about the condition of the tunnel?

Mr. Spearing: No. The point I am coming to is that the works which we are being asked to authorise are not necessary for the service which is starting in May. That service will be from Bedford to various destinations south of the Thames, particularly Bromley South, Gatwick and perhaps Brighton. Therefore, those tunnels will be in operation in a few months' time. That is not what the Bill is asking us to authorise.
We are being asked to authorise additional works, first, for the elimination of Holborn viaduct and, secondly, for the refurbishment of tunnels at King's Cross which will give a second outlet to the north. I am mystified why we need to spend a lot of money on redeveloping the Holborn viaduct area to provide a terminal on a station below, which I believe exists and through which trains will be running in the next few months.
In addition, I do not understand why there is an apparent need to remove the viaduct between Blackfriairs and Holborn and the Snow hill route which will start in a few weeks. I appreciate the architectural feature which may be an advantage if the railway is to go beneath the ground, but it is an expensive change which, apparently, will be paid for by the abandonment of Holborn viaduct. I assume that Holborn viaduct will be demolished because, ultimately, the balance of traffic north and south will eliminate the need for a terminal there. If Holborn viaduct is no longer required, surely it would be relatively cheap to put a station beneath it on the Snow hill line.
I now wish to turn to the mystery of works nos. 3A and 3B at King's Cross. I have made inquiries of British Rail about those and it has confirmed the relatively well-known fact that the York road tunnel and the Hotel curve tunnel will not take standard gauge coaches. Specially short or


narrow coaches and limited gauge locomotives were used on the Moorgate service until a few years ago. I have ascertained that they will not be available for 125s, sleeping cars or the new mark 4 coaches which will be used when electrification of the east coast main line occurs. Therefore, suburban services from the Peterborough or Stevenage areas will go to the various destinations in the south.

Mr. Trotter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that explanation. Surely, if the main part of Thameslink will take proper main line stock, it would be sensible to open up the curves on the tunnels at King's Cross so that we get all the advantages of running through services from the farther ends of the country.

Mr. Spearing: Yes, that would appear to be an attractive solution, but, from what little I know about this line, I believe that the loading gauge restrictions are not only on those tunnels but found elsewhere on the line.
How expensive will it be to make the so-called widened line even wider and provide the facilities that the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) mentioned? What about something more ambitious still?
My closing points relate to plans for rail traffic through London, which were produced in the mid-1960s. Under the strategic plans, there were proposals for main-line tunnels through the centre of London linking some of the mainline railways to the standard gauge size of bore. That would have been of vast benefit to Londoners. There would have been relatively short tunnels. If I remember rightly, there was a suggestion for tunnels between Paddington and Liverpool street and between Euston, Battersea and Victoria. British Rail revived such proposals not long ago in a scheme called CrossRail, but the Minister said that he was not concerned with it as British Rail had not produced any plans. He said that the Department of Transport would consider the proposals only if they were profitable.
We are now left with this limited proposal. It would be much better for strategic transport in London, where overcrowding on the underground is now a problem, for the Government to have invested in a much more ambitious scheme of standard gauge routes, either on the CrossRail principle introduced by British Rail some time ago or as envisaged in the strategic plan studies for London in the mid-1960s. That would have provided a better service for suburban traffic in London and for through-London services requested in the debate by hon. Members from the north.

Mr. Michael Fallon: The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman). Some hon. Members referred to him as the hon. Member for Chipping Norton. I would not ask him to choose between those two constituencies. I simply wish to put that on record. I am indebted to him for his clear explanation of the purposes of the Bill. I hope that he will not take it amiss if I now criticise to some extent the promoters of the Bill. We understand that he is not a promoter of the Bill. He is acting on their behalf and he has done his duty in as full and frank a way as possible.
The promoters of the Bill have not effectively discharged their obligations to the House. The statement

circulated by the promoters — I received a copy of it only this morning — is a tatty, two-page, photocopied document. It contains neither a financial explanation of the cost of the various works to be undertaken, for which powers are sought, nor a proper explanation, other than two sentences in paragraph 4, of the various works that are described in clause 5. It would be almost impossible for a layman, looking at a copy of the Bill and a copy of the tatty statement, to have any idea of what is going on or of the purpose of the Bill.
I draw that point to the attention of the House for two reasons. First, the House is considering private Members' Bills procedure. I should have thought that the Committee, which is sitting during this Session, might want to examine the statements that are circulated in support of private Members' Bills and whether those who promote them could get a little nearer to the model that was set by the Government, and, at the outset, attach to private Bills much fuller explanatory and financial memoranda.

Mr. Chapman: If the opportunity arises, I shall reply to the points that have been made. I should like to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) about the financing of the schemes. I hope to be able, as precisely as I can, to give hon. Members the figures that they want. They were published when the Bill first came before Parliament. Of course, that was the last Parliament. I take to heart the criticism that the figures were not presented with the memorandum. They are available.

Mr. Fallon: My hon. Friend, courteously as ever, has attempted to respond to my point. It is no reflection on him; it is a reflection on the promoters. I am bound to say that it will not do to tell us that the financial information was produced in the last Parliament. There are hon. Members present who were not in the last Parliament. No financial information is attached to the present Bill, the Order for the Second Reading of which the Clerk has read. It will not do to say that financial information was published at the time or that it was available in the last Parliament.
It will not do for another reason. When the debate began at 7 o'clock, somebody straying into it might have been under the impression that we were considering relatively minor works. It was only when we examined the full implications of clause 2 that we discovered that we are discussing works to be undertaken over two to three years. We are discussing a major infrastructure investment project in the heart of our capital city. We require much fuller financial information.
We require such information for a second reason. There is a growing, damaging imbalance of public expenditure on the railway network as a whole. Some of the works in clause 5 are self-financing. The return from the realisation of the existing Holborn viaduct site will cover work no. 1. My hon. Friend has already made it clear that the remaining works, works nos. 3A, 3B and 4, will not be self-financed and will require support from central British Rail funds. That means that they will require support from the taxpayer. The most heavily subsidised part of British Rail is Network SouthEast in which the works are being constructed.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State kindly supplied me with the figures before Christmas. The current passenger service obligation grant to Network SouthEast


is about £232 million. That is almost as much as the entire regional aid budget. Let us leave that out of the Bill for the moment. Let us simply remind ourselves that the money for the construction of the works at King's Cross, through Snow hill, will come from that central Government subsidy. Those works will be financed not simply by London commuters such as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, but by taxpayers throughout the country who may never witness them being undertaken.

Mr. Home Robertson: Would the hon. Gentleman have more confidence in the ability of British Rail to finance these works in the medium or long term if it had not gone to such strenuous lengths to deter many of its regular passengers and to sabotage the night services that serve the hon. Gentleman's constituency and my constituents from the Dunbar area?

Mr. Fallon: That is a very strong point. I was always taught at school that those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. I have now discovered that British Rail's motto must be, "Those services that it wishes to eliminate it first makes secret."
With regard to clause 5, as I established in my reference to the taxpayers' subsidy of these works in London, it would be wholly unfair to proceed with the construction of such a link across the centre of London unless all those who use the railway network and all those who are technically able to do so, commuting on the railway network from those parts that are connected to the London link, have equal access to it. It would be wrong to construct such a link and deny those who had paid for it to the right to travel along it. That means not only equal access but access on a regular and continuing basis, not simply at certain times of the day. This is not a London link for yuppies. It should be used by all those who use the railway network and are able to transfer at points on the east coast line. We shall learn where those points are when my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet replies to the debate.
It is right that, if the taxpayer is subsidising this link across the centre of the capital, all those who wish to have access to the King's Cross line—in particular, the east coast main line—should have access to it at whatever time of day they arrive or leave. Somebody in the north-east—on Tyneside or Teesside — may wish to reach Holborn for a breakfast meeting at 8.30 or 9 am. We are also entitled to consider the position of somebody leaving Holborn who wants to make a business trip to the northeast, the Borders or Scotland.
We are entitled to ask why this appears to be a metropolitan Bill. It has been drafted by people who have no conception of the huge distances involved for those who have to leave London and do their business in the borders or the north-east, or those who live in the Borders or the north-east and have to do their business in London.
Those who drafted the Bill do not understand the implications of not allowing those who live further away on the railway network to share in its benefits. I was not surprised that the metro-cats of Marsham Street could not find much for the Minister to say in support of the Bill. They have no understanding of the huge distances involved or the rights of those in the railway regions that we from the northern constituencies are determined to protect.
We do not find work no. 2 in clause 5. Is that another British Rail service that has somehow become secret? We

seem to leap from work no. 1 to work no. 3A. What happened to work no. 2? Was it considered at some earlier stage? Was it something that was included during the last Session that we are not entitled to see during this one? Should inquiries be made at the Vote Office to discover whether part of the Bill became detached in the excitement of the general election? I leave my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet to ponder that point.
Works nos. 3A and 3B pertain to King's Cross and, in a sense, lie at the heart of the Bill. As has been said many times in the debate, King's Cross is much more than a station for London commuters, enabling the yuppies who live on the outskirts of London — for example, Huntingdon — to make their money in the centre of London. It is a national station, as has been recognised from E. M. Forster onwards through the pages of our literature.
In undertaking works at this station whose benefits would not be available to those arriving overnight from Scotland or the north-east, the Bill's promoters are depriving King's Cross of part of its historic role in our railways network. They are also depriving the very people whom they seek to help—Londoners and City business men—of the opportunity to get out of London into the northern regions to see what is happening there. The promoters are doing no service at all.
I come to work no. 4. The serious point has emerged that it would be inappropriate to proceed with the development of subways and escalators in the vicinity of King's Cross when an inquiry into the tragic events of 18 November has only just been established and it will be months before we know what is recommended by the public inquiry set up under statute to be conducted on a judicial basis by Mr. Desmond Fennell QC. There is a range of issues to be considered — not simply fire detectors and sprinklers but the design of the subways and escalators.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet cannot reconsider works nos. 1, 3A and 3B, I urge him to look again at work no. 4 to determine whether it is right to ask the House to grant powers to authorise these works before the public inquiry into the tragic events of that fire has even begun.

Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend raises a serious point. I tried to reassure the House in my opening remarks. However great the speed with which the Bill progresses through the House, it will be some months before it reaches the statute book. As my hon. Friend has said, it will be some months before Mr. Desmond Fennell QC reports. The detailed designs of these escalators have yet to be completed. Obviously British Rail will wait on the inquiry's findings. Quite apart from that, British Rail will closely consult the railways inspectorate and the fire services.
Whatever else I cannot do, I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend on that important point. We are talking about the time span between the Bill being passed by Parliament and these works at King's Cross being completed — under two years. Some people complain that the works should be completed more expeditiously. Others, such as my hon. Friend, who refer to escalators rightly say that we should wait. I hope that I can assure my hon. Friend on that point, which is central to the questions that I asked before preparing to introduce the Bill.

Mr. Fallon: No one could have been more forthcoming and co-operative during this debate than my hon. Friend. He has sought every opportunity to reassure those of us who have had some reservations about the Bill's detailed provisions. His remarks are, to some extent, reassuring.
However, we are talking not just about escalators but about subways and the additional congestion that will be caused precisely because it will take at least two years to complete the work. A large number of additional passengers arriving at and departing from King's Cross may be rerouted along the subways because of the other works to be undertaken under the Bill.
I hope that my hon. Friend will consider carefully the import of his remarks and consider whether it might be better to separate work no. 4 from the others in the Bill, at least until the public inquiry report is available, which I understand will not be until the summer at the earliest. No one has provided any information to the contrary tonight. My hon. Friend might be better advised to return to the House with fresh legislation to seek powers in respect of work no. 4.
I conclude by making two general points. First, I return to clause 22. The Bill takes important powers of compulsory purchase—we have heard nothing of local authorities' response to them — for four years, until 1992. The Bill would allow major works in the heart of our capital city. My hon. Friend and his supporters must make their case for the importance of those powers and justify them.
Secondly, the Bill deals with improvements that will make it easier for those commuting to London—those who enjoy the benefits and southern comforts of the largest subsidy in the provincial rail network. If such benefits are to be conferred on London, it is surely right and proper that they should be enjoyed equally by the rest of the United Kingdom—the taxpayers who are forking out the money. Those who seek power to construct the link must ensure that, as far as practicable, all parts of the country have equal and regular access to it at all times of night and day.

Mr. A. J. Beith: This has been a very interesting debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to matters that had not struck some of us until we set to work on the Bill. That shows the value of the debate, and those who suggested that we should let the Bill go through on the nod at 2.30 pm, with not a word spoken, ought to pause and reflect that complex legislation such as this needs to be discussed in a reasonable way.
Had more time been available for the debate, other hon. Members might have wished to speak. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is a regular user of King's Cross and the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) takes a similarly close interest and makes full use of the service. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman would probably use the link line if the transfer arrangements between the main line and the link line proved satisfactory. However, it has not become at all clear that those transfer arrangements will be satisfactory.
I know that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) would have liked to deal at length with a number of the worries expressed during the debate. Let me say in passing that the promoters could not have had a

better or more helpful advocate than the hon. Gentleman and that we are grateful to him for the way in which he has conducted himself.
Many of us would welcome the opportunity to return to these discussions at a later debate—we could either adjourn this debate or discuss the Bill at a later stage in its proceedings if the difficulties have not been ironed out. Indeed, we may meet again to discuss a British Railways (No. 2) Bill if British Rail does not find it possible—as I am sure it could—to deal with Members of Parliament more directly and allay their fears so that it ceases to be necessary to discuss the issues in debates such as this.
The attitude of some in British Rail has not been conducive to achieving such an object. If one looks back on the long, tortuous history of railway legislation, one discovers that railway Bills generally proceed more satisfactorily when the railway company has taken some trouble to ensure that it is meeting the wide range of service needs of those represented in the House than when it has not.
I was particularly struck and, indeed, disturbed by the Government's attitude to the Bill and the reasons that they advanced for saying so little about it. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary of State had done some kind of deal with the promoters to keep his remarks to a minimum. I was surprised to see him in the Chamber. I thought it was a victory for the "Convert the railways into roads" lobby. I had expected to see the Minister of State at the Dispatch Box, because he normally deals with railways and takes such a close interest in them.
When the Government's doctrine was enunciated, I became even more surprised. The Minister said that the Government's attitude was that the investment was justified solely because of the return that could be gained from the redevelopment opportunities that it offered. Basically, the Government are happy about the provisions because they are self-financing. I agree with the Government that the fact that they are self-financing is to be welcomed. However, the idea that the Government's attitude should be confined to saying, "Well done, British Rail, you have found a self-financing project," seems extraordinary when one considers the revenue implications that might flow from the continued running of the services, the rolling stock that will have to be provided, the maintenance of that rolling stock, and the extent to which the receipts from the service are needed, when in the rest of Network SouthEast, one is not surprised to find a deficit or a difference between the revenue earned by the service and the cost of running it.
Another reason why I was struck particularly forcibly was that in reply to my intervention the Minister said, "Basically it has nothing to do with us. We are the Government who tell British Rail to go away and get on with the job. All that we are concerned about is to ensure that any deals that it does are self-financing."
I should find that attitude easier to understand if it was taken consistently by the Government. When my hon. Friends and I, and hon. Members of other parties, have raised other service issues relating to the east coast main line, Ministers have been only too keen to wade, with wellington boots, into all the details of the service and comment on them as if they knew precisely how much it cost to open a train door at Newcastle central station or for a passenger to alight at King's Cross. They quote figures of alleged subsidies to passeners as if they were intimate with the day-to-day workings of the rail system.


Indeed, I have advised Ministers that that is not what hon. Members expect of them because we understand that the Government are somewhat removed from the day-to-day operations of the railways.
However, the Government now seem to have got themselves in the ambiguous position that if British Rail proposes to remove a service, they weigh in with all the arguments that they can muster, but if British Rail is launching a new project, the Government's sole role will be to assess whether it can be financed out of the property development deal upon which it is based. Any railway finance implications, let alone implications for the customers of the railways, are of no concern to the Government. I find that profoundly worrying.

Mr. Jack Thompson: This is an important point. It has not yet been clearly stated that at the time of the sale of the land that is now to be sold to provide the finance for the new project, market forces may be totally different from the way in which they are identified now. Present values may not be applicable 12 months from now when the sale takes place. Has that fact been taken into account?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman can make his point with even more force having been told that the key figures that are the basis of all this were produced when the Bill was introduced in the previous Parliament. Quite a lot has changed since then, not least in the vicinity of Holborn viaduct station. City firms are shedding labour at a considerable rate and the calculations about the value to the link line of its passing close to the City will need to be reconsidered. Clearly, many other financial factors will change over time.

Mr. Chapman: I want to be as helpful as I can to the House. I may not have the opportunity before 10 o'clock to give all the information that has been asked of me during the debate. However, it may be helpful for the House to know that work no. 1 was estimated on 1 December 1986—that is 13-plus months ago—at about £36 million. A complete schedule was presented to Parliament. The hon. Member for Wansbeck is perfectly correct to say that British Rail does not know the value of the assets on the redevelopable land in the proximity of Holborn viaduct, because the value can change at any time.
Of course, the planning application is pending with the City of London corporation, and quite properly, it is not yet known whether those plans will be acceptable to that local planning authority.
One final point is that the House will be pleased to know that these plans will, I think, commend themselves to the local planning authority, if only because they have just been given the approval of the Royal Fine Arts Commission.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I shall turn later to the planning issues. I wonder whether the plans have obtained the approval of the royal family, too. Its members take a close interest in developments in the area around St. Paul's.
I am glad to see that the Minister of State has joined us; I hope to come to what he said about the level of subsidy that he thought—incorrectly, as it turned out—applied to certain other British Rail services as compared with the level of subsidy that applies to passengers travelling on this link route from north London through to the southern counties.
One cannot now think of King's Cross station without remembering the horrible tragedy that took place there and which so shook the nation. Those of us who use the station regularly cannot but be moved by the sight of the bank of flowers that stands outside it, and by the way in which people have added flowers and messages to that bank of flowers as the weeks have gone by. I hope that there will be some sort of permanent memorial, somewhere within the precincts of King's Cross, to those who lost their lives in that terrible tragedy. I hope, too, that lessons will be learnt from it. It was a horrifying experience and many people were directly affected by it.
The fire changed many people's perception of the station. For many people in the north-east, King's Cross has always been the gateway to London, and the facility, if it were properly organised, to travel to other parts of London directly, possibly without even changing trains—as we had hoped—or at least by making a simple connection, would be welcome to such people.
Many of my constituents come through this gateway in to London—farmers coming to the Smithfield show, for instance, although I notice that not so many are coming this year. Times are not so good for the farming fraternity, as the hon. Member for East Lothian knows from personal experience. Ministers and church members come to the numerous church conferences that seem to take place in London ; women's institute members come, as do parties of schoolchildren, who go to the Tower and see the various sights of London. King's Cross is also a gateway outwards from London, which illustrates the importance of the station, upon which so many of these works will be carried out.
I had not spotted, until the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) pointed it out, the disappearance from the Bill of work no. 2. Perhaps, one day, we shall discover what happened to work no. 2 and why, when it disappeared, works nos. 3 and 4 were not renumbered accordingly, as would be the normal practice. I am sure that hon. Members will be familiar with E. M. Forster's novel, "Howard's End", to which the hon. Member for Darlington referred. In it, Margaret Schlegel is mentioned:
To Margaret … the station of King's Cross had always suggested Infinity.
I am not referring to the Prime Minister, who does not visit King's Cross as frequently as I would wish; neither does she travel on the trains as often as I would wish.
Its very situation—withdrawn a little behind the facile spendours of St. Pancras — implied a comment on the materialism of life. Those two great arches, colourless, indifferent, shouldering between them an unlovable clock, were fit portals for some eternal adventure, whose issue might be prosperous, but would certainly not be expressed in the ordinary language of prosperity.
That is rather a dated view of King's Cross, because the buildings on which the works are to be carried out are now recognised for their enormous architectural value. They present a marked contrast between King's Cross and St. Pancras, where Giles Gilbert Scott worked off the frustrations of not having been allowed to build a Gothic Foreign Office — instead, he built a Gothic station. Lewis Cubitt, who had been told that a good station could be built at King's Cross for less than the cost of the ornamental archway at Euston square—its removal was one of the early tragedies of modernisation—set to and produced a remarkable building which was perhaps the first great essay in functional architecture. It was the


precursor of a whole generation of architecture against which people are now turning, but it must be maintained, preserved and recognised.
In recent years, work carried out at King's Cross has tried to be sympathetic to the character of King's Cross. I know that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet has a close interest in buildings and architecture and, with his training, he understands it very well. Recent works have tried to be sympathetic to King's Cross and I hope that the works to be carried out under the Bill will do no harm to that very important and historic building. That is a difficult matter for people to deal with, but it is important. I am puzzled by the attitude of British Rail management to it.
The redoubtable Mr. Prideaux is one of the many members of British Rail management who have been involved in arguments with me and with other hon. Members present. He said:
Euston's environment for overnight services is superior to that at King's Cross.
He is arguing that King's Cross is basically an unsuitable station even for passengers who alight from an overnight train so that they can go down the escalator provided by the Bill to join the link line to go through London to Holborn and possibly to destinations to the south of London.
Mr. Prideaux says that the environment there is not suitable for that purpose. I cannot understand why, because King's Cross has refreshment room facilities, newspaper stalls, a Pullman lounge and all the facilities that one might require either on alighting in the early morning or leaving late at night. However, I wish that the refreshment kiosk stayed open a bit later at night, because at 11.30 pm one is confined to a burger stand. The facilities are adequate for the purpose, and will be particularly so if the link line is there.
I cannot see the sense of diverting all the overnight traffic from Scotland into Euston if the link line was about to be provided. The possibility that people could move directly from an overnight service on to a train which would take them into central London or out to destinations south of London, should have been foreseen by British Rail when it made its extraordinary management decision to transfer all overnight services to Euston. At the back of that desire to transfer, there seems to be a belief that in some way King's Cross is not an adequate station. I reject that view and it is implicitly rejected in the decision in the Bill to make King's Cross part of this service.

Mr. Trotter: For the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has advanced, if King's Cross is inadequate for people who simply want to get on an overnight train, it must be a great deal more inadequate for the many people who use it during the day.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I shall come to the problems related to the points about congestion that were made earlier in the debate.
One matter casts a strange light on the Bill. I went to York to discuss British Rail's plans to withdraw overnight services from the Borders. At that meeting I discovered that British Rail planned to remove them from Tyneside as well. Nothing had been heard about that decision. Indeed, I found afterwards that a press release had been

issued at precisely the time that I was to meet Mr. Fraser the InterCity manager to discuss the problem. He told me that one of the results of the change in the overnight services would be that King's Cross station would be closed after 10 o'clock at night. How does that fit in with the provisions of the Bill?
Clearly, the Bill envisages that King's Cross will provide a regular service for passengers either walking directly to King's Cross station or alighting there from Holborn viaduct or stations to the south. I simply do not understand how an apparent attempt to achieve economies by closing King's Cross at night squares with the provisions of the Bill.
Problems will arise because of congestion at King's Cross while the works take place. The problem at King's Cross is not with the overnight services but arises because of the build-up of daytime services and the passengers for them. When the overnight services depart and arrive there is plenty of room on the concourse at King's Cross for all the passengers, even though the trains are full. The Minister should realise that British Rail is pulling the wool over his eyes when it says that nobody uses those overnight services. The evening sleeper service to the Borders and Edinburgh is full night after night. I know that from personal experience. The southbound service from Newcastle is frequently full, even if the northbound service is not.
The congestion problem arises during the day because of the large number of InterCity trains that are in the station for a very short time. They are heavily used—it is a case of capital being intensively used—and one of the consequences is that often the train does not sit at the platform for the 20-minute or half-hour period to ensure that passengers can get directly on to it. Passengers may be boarding the train in the last five or 10 minutes. The result is that a large number of people are queueing on the King's Cross station concourse.
It is extraordinary; it is like Hampton court maze. The entire station concourse is marked out with lines —rather like the lines on the carpet in the Chamber—in a great serpentine shape. The queues are coiled one on another like an Indian snake-charmer's basket, as people wind around to get from one side of the station to their platform, or sometimes proceed in the reverse direction, in queue B, queue C and queue D. It is a most elaborate system, and it is a tribute to the fortitude and patience of the British people — especially the Geordie, Northumbrian and Scottish travellers who use the station — that they bear the queueing system with such tolerance, and show so little irritation, even when enduring very uncomfortable and inconvenient arrangements.

Mr. Trotter: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the features of the maze at King's Cross is the complete lack of anyone in authority to help with directions? Presumably that will also apply to the problem of how to get down to the Holborn link.

Mr. Beith: That is true. I have seen it time and again. I find — particularly if I am wearing a black coat, or anything which faintly resembles authority—that I am asked questions by members of the public about how they can get to, say, the metropolitan line.
Problems of congestion are bound to be more acute if a serious displacement of other activities in the station is caused by the works that are taking place. A complete


escalator and ticket hall must be built. I foresee considerable problems arising from building of the ticket hall, which is one of the explicit provisions in the Bill. Someone will have to explain to the staff at King's Cross how to relate the activities of one ticket hall to those of the other.
My experience at King's Cross—and, I am sure, that of other hon. Members —has been very disconcerting. For two or three months it was impossible to book a sleeper to Alnmouth, in my constituency, because the ticket office had been told that the train did not stop there. Although the barrier, with a notice on it, was nearer to that ticket office than the new ticket hall proposed in the Bill, the staff seemed unable to observe the words written above the platform informing passengers that the train stopped at Alnmouth. Unless there is some co-ordination, there will be experiences similar to the experience—which I described in an earlier intervention—of the unfortunate Nigerians arriving in Milton Keynes.
Let me now deal with the important issue of the interchange between the link service that the Bill provides and other services out of King's Cross. It has been a great disappointment to hon. Members that there seems to be no prospect of through running, despite concern in the north about through running into the Channel tunnel and beyond.
As the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) pointed out, any support given from the north-east to the Channel tunnel, although it was pretty muted, was at least based on the assumption that there had to be a rail tunnel, with a direct rail connection. If the Bill's promoters would say that the Bill would assist through running through the tunnel that is being built in London, so that direct services to the continent would be an early possibility, it would be enormously welcome, in relation to freight as well as passenger travel.
It is important that the north-east should gain the benefits of rail haulage, which could provide the area with distinct economic advantages if there was direct linking through the Channel tunnel. However, we were told that the loading gauge made through running unlikely, unless there was some rolling stock specifically designed to enable through running from the east coast main line on to the link line and beyond.

Mr. Chapman: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 34.

Division No. 147]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Chapman, Sydney


Atkinson, David
Chope, Christopher


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cormack, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Cousins, Jim


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cran, James


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bright, Graham
Day, Stephen


Burt, Alistair
Devlin, Tim


Butterfill, John
Dorrell, Stephen


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Carttiss, Michael
Eggar, Tim





Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Mans, Keith


Favell, Tony
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Miller, Hal


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Monro, Sir Hector


Forman, Nigel
Moore, Rt Hon John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Moss, Malcolm


Gale, Roger
Neubert, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Nicholls, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Oppenheim, Phillip


Gorst, John
Paice, James


Gow, Ian
Patnick, Irvine


Gower, Sir Raymond
Porter, David (Waveney)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Portillo, Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Raffan, Keith


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Riddick, Graham


Ground, Patrick
Rost, Peter


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Rowe, Andrew


Hanley, Jeremy
Ryder, Richard


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Harris, David
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Sims, Roger


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Speed, Keith


Hunter, Andrew
Stern, Michael


Irvine, Michael
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Jack, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Jackson, Robert
Summerson, Hugo


Janman, Timothy
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Knapman, Roger
Thurnham, Peter


Knowles, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Trippier, David


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Lightbown, David
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Lilley, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Watts, John


Lord, Michael
Wheeler, John


McCrindle, Robert
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Macfarlane, Sir Neil



MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maclean, David
Mr. Michael Brown and


McLoughlin, Patrick
Mr. Timothy Wood.


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)



NOES


Ashdown, Paddy
Leadbitter, Ted


Beith, A. J.
Livsey, Richard


Buchan, Norman
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
McWilliam, John


Canavan, Dennis
Meale, Alan


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Patchett, Terry


Clelland, David
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cox, Tom
Prescott, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Snape, Peter


Dixon, Don
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Eadie, Alexander
Trotter, Neville


Flannery, Martin
Vaz, Keith


Foster, Derek
Wallace, James


Foulkes, George
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Golding, Mrs Llin



Haynes, Frank
Tellers for the Noes:


Home Robertson, John
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


Lamond, James
Mr. Michael Fallon.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put accordingly and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed.

Hong Kong

Postponed proceeding resumed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the White Paper on the Annual Report on Hong Kong 1987 (Cm. 293) and endorses the policies which the Government is pursuing to maintain Hong Kong's future prosperity and stability.

Food Protection

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I beg to move,
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Order 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 11), dated 7th January 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th January, be approved.
The order revokes and re-enacts with amendments the provisions of the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No. 3) Order 1987 and the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No. 4) Order 1987. It continues the emergency prohibitions imposed by those orders, restricting various activities to prevent consumption of food rendered unsuitable for that purpose in consequence of the escape in April 1986 of radioactive substances from the nuclear reactor at Chernobyl. [Interruption.]

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am interested in what the Minister is saying, but I cannot hear a word of it.

Mr. Speaker: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Forsyth: The order also designates again and sets out the areas in Scotland affected by the escape from which the movement of sheep and in which the slaughter of sheep are prohibited. As hon. Members are aware, the restrictions on the slaughter of sheep from the designated areas and the supply of meat derived from such sheep extend throughout the United Kingdom.
Hon. Members will know that in the interests of causing minimum disruption to normal business practice, the Government announced on 13 August 1986 the introduction of a mark and release scheme to enable sheep which failed a monitoring test for radioactivity to be moved from an area where the movement and slaughter of sheep had been restricted by order, but not to be slaughtered. Those sheep were painted on the head with a distinctive paint mark of a particular colour which denoted that they came from a restricted area and could not be slaughtered until they had successfully passed a monitoring test and were ear-tagged to denote that fact or until there was a general amnesty on sheep painted that colour, following comprehensive testing to ensure that the consumption of the sheep would no longer pose any threat to health.
Three colours are used in rotation for this marking—green, blue and apricot. The order provides that, as from Monday 11 January, slaughter controls on green-marked sheep originating in the post-Chernobyl restricted areas are lifted. It follows a substantial fall in radioactivity levels in such sheep, all of which were marked on or before 27 September 1987, following their move to clean pasture.
In addition, with effect from Monday 11 January, the colour mark used to identify hitherto unmarked sheep which are to leave a restricted area after failing a live-monitoring test for radioactivity is changed from blue to apricot. As with previous colour changes, the latest change is to enable newly marked animals to be distinguished from sheep which have moved earlier out of a restricted area onto clean pasture, thus facilitating the eventual release from controls of blue-marked sheep once the readings for radioactivity permit it.
Neither sheep marked blue on or after 28 September 1987, nor sheep marked apricot on or after 11 January


1988 may be slaughtered unless they successfully pass a re-monitoring test for radioactivity and are identified with a special ear-tag.
Those changes in colour continue the central control, designed to protect the food chain, over the movement and slaughter of sheep from the restricted areas and enable sheep once contaminated to unacceptably high levels of radioactivity and in respect of which these levels have now decreased to acceptable levels, to be slaughtered.

Mr. James Wallace: If there are any difficulties after this year, are there any contingency plans about future colour arrangements?

Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman has followed the debate—I am sure he has followed the subject closely—he will know that the three colours operate in rotation and that there is no need for additional colours to be added. The additional scheme of monitoring in the slaughterhouses continues to give added protection to the food chain.
I commend the order to the House.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I want to know who chose the colour apricot used in the scheme. I am grateful to the Minister for giving us a brief explanation of the way in which the colour coding scheme is going round in circles. It sounds rather like a variation on the alliance merger negotiations. I am sorry that neither the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) nor the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) can be with us tonight. I understand that they may be taking part in something of a greetin' meetin', in keeping with the tactics that the leader of the SDP has recently discussed.
I am grateful to the Minister for giving a brief account of the way in which the restriction scheme is operating. I understand that the areas covered are as before, and that therefore the same number of farms and broadly the same number of sheep are subject to the restrictions. I understand from the National Farmers Union of Scotland that it is as happy as can be expected about the way in which the scheme is operated. Indeed, everyone involved with farming in Scotland recognises how important it is that consumers should be reassured that meat reaching the market place is safe for consumption. It is obviously important that the Government should continue to operate such schemes for as long as necessary.
With that in mind, I should be grateful if the Minister could give us some suggestions about how long the Government's experts advise that the restrictions should remain in effect. This morning my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), the shadow Minister of Agriculture, gave me a copy of a cutting from the Manx Independent of 8 September 1987. That article quoted an unnamed scientist from the industrial pollution inspectorate in Scotland who confirmed that sheep farms could remain under Government restrictions for years. He told the paper:
Caesium levels will decay by half their value in 30 years, and because of the nature of much upland pasture, readings which are considerably above the trigger levels in operation, suggest that caesium pollution could be a problem for many years.
Clearly that is a matter of some concern. It has bearing on the considerations that the House and the nation may

give to future aspects of nuclear power, nuclear waste disposal and so on. Over the years, we have had many reassurances that we have no need to worry and that we will be all right. We have been told that nothing possible could go wrong and that if it does we will be perfectly safe and that there are ways of dealing with such problems. However, here we are facing a problem that occurred hundreds of miles away nearly two years ago—

Mr. Foulkes: Thousands of miles away.

Mr. Home Robertson: Yes, indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That problem occurred nearly two years ago, but farms, businesses and people's jobs and way of life are being disrupted in Scotland.
I make no complaint about the fact that the Government are introducing the order. Indeed, I wholeheartedly support it. However, I should be grateful if the Minister took this opportunity to say how much longer such restrictions are likely to be in effect.

Sir Hector Monro: Although hon. Members may greet the debate with some hilarity, I believe that there is a serious side to the problem, on two counts. First, the Government were quick to react to the problem and introduce the scheme, soon after the Chernobyl accident, in the interests of consumers. However, at the same time, it was equally important that a scheme should be provided to help farmers sell their fat lambs at the appropriate time and to ensure that they were clear of caesium contamination.
I believe that the Government and the Scottish Department, of Agriculture and Fisheries, which has administered the scheme, often with particular difficulty, have done so with great good will and good nature. Farmers are satisfied that they were helped through this difficult period by that Department, and particularly by regional offices such as that in Dumfries.
In the first six months when the scheme was new many difficulties arose. I appreciate that it took some time for that scheme to be understood in the markets and in the farms. However, the compensation that was paid and the arrangements that were made have, in the long run, proved satisfactory. However, I appreciate that many farmers have been greatly inconvenienced by the order, especially in south-west Scotland.
I am grateful for the opportunity to thank the Minister and his Department for being so helpful and understanding and for administering the scheme in the best way possible.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I apologise for being a fellow Celt and not a true Scot. My wife is Scottish, and in the past I farmed 1,500 acres in Scotland, so I know a little about the farming scene there. It is sensible to continue with the order. We have had a similar problem in north Wales. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has also experienced similar problems in his constituency.
The main point is that the health of the public must be protected. All farmers accept that. That is a fundamental requirement of the order. It is also necessary to protect farmers' products and markets long term.
The CEGB proposal to conduct an experiment at Trawsfynydd power station in Wales is irresponsible. It


could cause problems if it is not monitored carefully. I do not think that it is wise to proceed with it. It should be remembered that the original experiment at Chernobyl caused all the trouble that we are discussing. It must also be remembered that farmers are now into the third year of disruption and are not able to market sheep from the upland areas. The Scottish Office should ensure that those farmers are adequately compensated. Considerable compensation has been given but, as I have just said, this is the third year in which the upland sheep farming system will be affected.
Upland areas throughout the United Kingdom have been affected. The Scottish colleges should monitor farm accounts closely to find out the long-term effect on the profitability of the Scottish upland farms. The Government should try to ensure that there is not a continuing decline in farm incomes. Therefore, the Minister should take careful note of the monitoring from the point of view of the contamination of the sheep and the effect on the profitability of sheep farming systems.

Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the introduction of the order and the fact that the Government are continuing to act sensibly and sensitively, as they have done from the outset, on the problems faced by sheep farmers. After all, it was not the action of sheep farmers that brought about the difficulties. It is wise to remember, as the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has said, that such things are with us and that they could happen again.
What comes through clearly is that, whatever we decide to do in the United Kingdom, it will not in the end have any impact upon totalitarian regimes wherever they are, and particularly on the one that initiated the problem. We can only hope that our example will encourage or embarrass that country so that never again will we face a similar situation.
The Government have adopted a realistic approach. We have dealt with the effects of the fallout and we have put into operation a system of monitoring that continues to protect the consumer while at the same time ensuring that farmers do not go out of business during the term of the order. On that the Government are to be congratulated.

Mr. George Foulkes: I declare an interest from the point of view of my constituency, which is affected by the order and by the contamination, as the Minister knows. As the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) knows only too well, my constituency is large, being 800 square miles in area. It is interesting to note, in view of the debate in which I participated earlier, that my constituency is twice the size of Hong Kong, which has a population of 5·5 million. My constituency is sparsely populated; it is rural, with many high parts, and has a heavy rainfall. It was one of the areas most seriously affected by contamination because, unfortunately, we had very heavy rainfall just after the Chernobyl incident.
I agree with the hon. Member for Dumfries that this is not a humorous or facetious issue. It is important in terms of compensation and effect. We must remember that this

incident, involving serious contamination and restriction on the slaughter of sheep, took place almost two years ago, yet it is still having a serious effect. We must also remember that it was not a nuclear explosion. It was a conventional explosion in a nuclear power station resulting in the emission of radioactive material which went into the atmosphere, was transported through the atmosphere and deposited, in particular, in Scotland, Wales and Cumbria. It was a case of caesium contamination, which decays very slowly.
It is a very serious matter, but there is no harm in bringing humour into a serious matter—as I have been known to do from time to time — because it can sometimes illustrate a point extremely well, as the Minister managed to do in his reference to the colouring of sheep.
This matter has caused a great deal of concern in my constituency. I have raised the post-Chernobyl effect with the Minister on several occasions, but, like his predecessor, he tends to shrug it off in a Pavlovian way. In my younger days, I studied psychology a little, including the matters studied by Pavlov. Scottish Office Ministers tend to react in that sort of way when hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, raise such issues.
I have mentioned on previous occasions the effect of the build-up of radioactivity after the Chernobyl incident in the bodies of people in south-west Scotland. Although there is a restriction on the slaughter of sheep which register above the 1,000 becquerel level, contaminated sheep below that level are still being slaughtered and sent to market. Sheep are also being slaughtered and being sent to market at a later stage when the becquerel level falls.
There has not been sufficient study of the other ways in which accumulated radioactivity gets into the body through food chains and accumulates. If that effect is evident in sheep and lambs, it must surely be present in the bodies of other animals that we eat. It must be present in grain and root crops and is therefore coming through all the food chains into the body. That is why I have been urging the Minister to institute a systematic study of whole-body monitoring.

Mr. Livsey: The becquerel level of a married couple farming in north Wales has been monitored. The becquerel level recorded in the wife was 4,500 and the level in the husband was 4,800.

Mr. Foulkes: I can give other similar examples. The Minister, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), brought the matter to the attention of the media. He supplied other figures for me and then shrugged them off. I regret that he does so. There were high radioactivity levels for trout in Loch Doon, for rabbits—the level for rabbits in my constituency was very high—and for deer. Of course, radioactive material is concentrated in animals' bodies.
I have been arguing for systematic whole-body monitoring. The Minister said that it is already happening because volunteers are going to east Kilbride. Professor Baxter and his staff at the Scottish university research and reactor centre are doing whole-body monitoring. But that is not a systematic study to try to compare one part of the country with another. Of course, volunteers are not always those who need to have their radioactivity levels checked. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter. Opposition Members were worried recently by a report in The Observer that the radiation monitoring unit at the Ministry of Defence had warned against—

Sir Hector Monro: That is quite incorrect information. A fortnight ago, I received a letter from the Ministry of Defence — it was well publicised in the press—stating that that was a lot of nonsense.

Mr. Foulkes: If that is the case, I look forward to receiving a copy of the letter from the hon. Gentleman. The information was certainly not refuted at the time. Many weeks ago, a full account appeared in The Observer, including a quotation from a Ministry of Defence spokesman, stating that the Department had warned against military personnel going to the south-west of Scotland because of the danger of radioactivity in the Purple Warrior exercise. I observed that exercise and had certain comments to make.
There is general concern not just because of the post-Chernobyl effect but because there are other potentially radioactive nuclear establishments in the area. There is Hunterston in the north. Right in the centre there is the radioactive establishment of great interest at Chapelcross, which many people forget. Not only is it a generating station but it has other significant functions as a producer of tritium and plutonium. Therefore it is important in terms of the weapons programme. It is right in the centre of south-west Scotland. Sellafield is south of south-west Scotland.
We know about the concern that has been expressed about Sellafield. The latest Sellafield proposal is that the enriched plutonium that is brought here from Japan for reprocessing should be flown back from Prestwick airport. A previous Energy Select Committee pointed out that the most dangerous radioactivity scenario that one can envisage is an aeroplane crash. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is an expert on the matter. There is concern about road and rail transportation and possible accidents. The worse possible scenario is an air crash, a subsequent fire, and the effect of radioactive discharges and the contamination that should take place.
We in south-west Scotland consider that the area is targeted. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dumfries mutters away. His majority is reducing progressively as mine rises progressively. Bit by bit, the people of southwest Scotland are giving their verdict. There will soon be few Tories in that area. I receive letters from the hon. Gentleman's constituency and from the neighbouring constituency, stating that the Conservative Members are not adequately reflecting local people's concerns.
There is genuine concern that the south-west of Scotland is targeted. Of course, we cannot blame Chernobyl; it was entirely an accident. There was certainly no intention to target any part of the country. It was an unfortunate thing, and it added to people's worries. They are already concerned about the incidence of radioactivity and the potential for further radioactive contamination in the area.
I hope that the Minister will give a more positive reaction about the monitoring for which not only I but other people have been calling. If he does not, we shall continue to press him in order to obtain a response. I hope that he will, for once, show some concern. He is following the path of his predecessor in accepting the bland assurances that he is given by his Department and regurgitating them. He should remember what happened to his predecessor the Earl of Ancram, who is no longer a Member of the House.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: By leave of the House, I shall try to answer some of the main points that have been made.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said that I follow a long line of Ministers who repeat what the Department says. I took the trouble to read some of the speeches that the hon. Gentleman has made on this issue. He seems to make the same point over and over again and, although it is answered, he does not accept the answers that are given. He has a characteristic of trying to stir up anxiety about these issues because of his particular antipathy to nuclear power. It is slightly mischievous of him to create needless concern among his constituents.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's point about whole-body monitoring, he knows very well that there is a project being carried out at East Kilbride, which he mentioned. He says that it is not a proper project because it is based on particular selected volunteers. My understanding is that to make the data from the project valid, it is essential to have volunteers whose dietary behaviour has been considered to obtain worthwhile results. I would rather take the word of the scientist responsible for the project on the best ways of achieving that than take that of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister confirm that scientists have put to him a proposal that has not been approved by the Department?

Mr. Forsyth: We are supporting the project that is currently being undertaken.

Mr. Foulkes: The Minister is dodging.

Mr. Forsyth: I am not dodging at all. It has shown quite clearly that the assumptions on which our action was based were valid.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) for the tributes that they paid to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which handled an extremely difficult matter extremely well. It has served the people of Scotland very well indeed.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley must not try to imply that the levels of radioactivity concerned are anything but nominal. Even at the 1,000 bq/kg level in lamb, if someone consumed 5 kg per year it would be equivalent to the levels in half an X-ray. We should bear that point in mind.
The hon. Gentleman asked about deer, rabbits, trout, grouse and other animals that have been affected. One would have to eat about 20 grouse per year to reach the levels with which we are concerned. The higher levels that are sometimes referred to occurred on the leg meat of the grouse, and there is not much leg meat on a grouse.

Mr. Foulkes: I did not mention grouse. I mentioned rabbits, trout and deer. I specifically did not mention grouse because very few of my constituents are able to afford it. Some of them manage to catch trout, and the Minister will recall that the level in trout in Loch Doon was about 4,500 bq/kg. The Minister is shrugging off concern about such information.

Mr. Forsyth: The reason why I mentioned grouse--the hon. Gentleman is right, he did not mention grouse specifically—is because the highest levels of radioactivity have been encountered on the leg meat of grouse; I was


giving the worst case to reassure the hon. Gentleman's constituents. The levels of bq/kg discovered in deer, rabbit and trout are very much less. The point that I am trying to get across to the hon. Gentleman is that the quantity of meat consumed determines the dosage. The dosages concerned are very low and are comparable to half an X-ray. It is irresponsible of the hon. Gentleman to imply that his constituents are somehow threatened. If they were, the Department would have taken action, as it has done over the sheep problems.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) asked why we chose particular colours. It arose because of the dyes. I am sure that he will be relieved to know that red is used only in England and not in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman assumed that the number of farms affected would be broadly the same, and went on to say that this problem would be with us for a considerable time. This year 69 farms are covered, compared with more than 2,500 the previous year. The worries expressed by the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues do not appear to be reflected in the number of farms affected.
The hon. Gentleman talked about sheep farms being affected for years to come and quoted the 30-year half-life of caesium. What matters is not the half-life of caesium but the time that it takes for the caesium to be dispersed. That is affected by rainfall, soil and vegetation structure, and so on.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister referred to the 69 farms covered. I understand that that is precisely the same number of farms that were covered by the order that we debated on 16 November, which, incidentally, included a number of farms that had not been covered by previous orders. There seems to be an indication that there was a build-up in some areas. I press the hon. Gentleman again to take the opportunity to give some sign of the Government's view, on the strength of the scientific advice available to them, of how much longer this type of restriction is likely to have to remain in force.

Mr. Forsyth: There are 69 farms involved, and about 124,000 of the sheep population in Scotland of 8·;8 million are affected. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that some additional farms came within the system. As he has studied these matters, he will know that, for example, the structure of the vegetation in some areas results in a concentration of caesium. That is why some farms came back into the system, as I explained when we debated the matter previously, along with the orders that applied to other parts of the United Kingdom.
The Government will continue to operate the system so long as our monitoring indicates that it is necessary to do so to protect the food chain. I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports us.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am sure that the whole House would support any responsible Government in applying restrictions where they are necessary. I am trying to press the Minister to throw some light on one point. I am certain that his officials have given him some information on the likely prognosis. How long is it likely that such restrictions will have to remain in force, either on these farms or on others? Are we talking about weeks, months or, indeed, years?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman may believe that the Scottish Office is omniscient, but it does not have the qualities of precognition. There is no way of predicting exactly how quickly dispersal of the caesium will take. The position that the hon. Gentleman appeared to think existed is not nearly as bad as he suggested.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) referred to compensation. To date, the compensation paid in Scotland amounts to £1·4 million. The hon. Gentleman talked about the tests to be carried out in a nuclear power station, which is something of a red herring. I refer him to the excellent reply by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the House yesterday, which he obviously has not had an opportunity to read.
We shall keep the situation in Scotland under review to ascertain how far restrictions will need to be maintained in 1988. For the immediate future, however, we believe that the present movement and slaughter controls represent the most practicable way of ensuring the continued safety of the food chain and of maintaining public confidence with the minimum disruption to farmers' normal husbandry practices. I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohitions) Order 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 11), dated 7th January 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th January, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

FEES AND CHARGES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),
That the draft Department of Trade and Industry (Fees) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 4th December, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Question agreed to.

Exhaust Emission Control

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]]

Mr. Graham Bright: The impact of the motor car on our lives is obvious to us all. It is an essential means of transport for business and leisure activities for the majority of the population. Indeed, no modern economy could survive or prosper without it. The growing number of vehicles on our roads has created a series of problems — congestion, inadequate traffic-carrying capacity and a shortage of parking spaces in our towns and cities. We are all familiar with those problems.
The Government and local authorities rightly give high priority to the task of tackling those problems. However, there is a second concern — less obvious but equally serious. We have become much more conscious of the effects of vehicle exhaust on the atmosphere. That was one of the reasons for our welcome decision to move from the use of leaded to the use of unleaded petrol. But car engines are also the source of a substantial proportion of the carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and unburnt hydrocarbons being pumped into the air every single day.
I do not pretend to be a medical expert, but I know that the harmful effects of the emissions are widely accepted. More than 90 per cent. of the carbon monoxide detected in cities in the United States, which has far more stringent standards than we have, comes from car exhausts. Carbon monoxide is a poison that reduces the flow of oxygen into the blood. People with weak hearts and the very young suffer extra strain even at low levels of exposure.
The second major source of pollution is to be found in the oxides of nitrogen. Admittedly, cars are not normally responsible for as high a proportion of these as of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere. They are responsible perhaps for only 30 to 40 per cent. in most urban areas. Even a small concentration has been shown to cause respiratory problems for children and asthmatics—something that concerns me as an asthmatic.
Finally, there are the unburnt hydrocarbons, which, in combination with nitrogen oxides, have been identified as a major cause of acid rain and photochemical smog. Two years ago, I had the dubious privilege of seeing the disastrous results of acid rain pollution on the Black forest in West Germany. It would be most unwise to think that those effects occur only there and in Norway. Every time that we get a really fine summer day without strong winds, we also get ozone pollution outdoors at levels of concentration well above those permitted in factories by the factory inspectors. There is no escaping those effects; they are all around us.
Other countries have acted to control such emissions. The Clean Air Act passed in the United States in 1970 required motor manufacturers to cut atmospheric pollution from vehicle exhausts. The technology needed to do that was available in the form of autocatalysts. Since those became compulsory in 1975, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions have fallen by 90 per cent.—as a result of oxidation catalysts being fitted to the exhausts of new cars. Since 1981, when the three-way catalysts capable of removing nitrogen oxides also became compulsory, the emission of that gas has dropped by 75 per cent. Therefore, it is not surprising that other countries such as Australia, Canada and Japan have followed the American lead.
Here in Europe, members of the Stockholm group have adopted the United States emission standards. Austria, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway have all decided to take that course. In the European Community, West Germany, Holland and Luxembourg have used fiscal incentives to promote the use of autocatalysts.
As a result of the Luxembourg compromise in 1985 — I emphasise the word "compromise" — the Commission produced a draft directive requiring cars with a capacity of more than 2 litres to have three-way catalytic converters fitted by 1989; those with engines between 1·4 and 2 litres would either have to have three-way catalysts or lean-burn engines fitted with oxidation catalysts, while those under 1·4 litres would require lean-burn engines alone.
I now understand — this is one reason why I have sought this debate—that the Community's Environment Ministers agreed at their meeting on 3 December that the directive should now be issued. I understand also that they have not yet decided what should happen about small cars. I understand further that Denmark is to go it alone arid have more stringent controls. I say, "Good for Denmark." That is undoubtedly progress. My hon. Friend will be entitled to claim credit for that on both economic arid technical grounds when he replies. However, the key question is whether it is an entirely appropriate solution in the long-term.
This issue is of great importance to my constituency, where General Motors' main United Kingdom plant, Vauxhall, is situated, and to the British-based motor manufacturing industry in general.
There is no doubt that we have the technology to solve the problem. Indeed, a British company, Johnson Matthey, pioneered the development of autocatalysts and is still the world leader in this field. That company, together with General Motors, is a major exporter of autocatalysts to the American and European markets. The difficulty that motor manufacturers based in Britain and suppliers like Johnson Matthey will face lies in the mixture of lean-burn and autocatalysts technology that is proposed in the directive.
It is not true to claim that lean-burn technology in itself offers a solution. Lean-burn engines cut emissions of nitrogen oxides at low speeds, but increase them at higher speeds. There has been some misleading, not to say irresponsible, advertising by one of our major motor manufacturers on that point. Furthermore, the leaner the engine, the higher the hydrocarbon emissions. That explains the need for oxidation catalysts to reduce carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions on lean-burn engines.
The study conducted by the Warren Spring laboratory for the Department of the Environment suggests that, on official traffic forecasts, the adoption of the directive will reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from vehicles by between 12 and 32 per cent. by 2010. If three-way catalysts were fitted to all cars, the estimated reduction would be between 60 and 69 per cent.
The directive offers a second-best solution, even if it is adopted now. A delay in its adoption until the 1990s will simply put back the date at which atmospheric pollution begins to be reduced.
I appreciate that one or two manufacturers face difficulties in completing their engine technology to accommodate autocatalysts on all their models. But all our manufacturers are already faced with the task of meeting


American emission standards, if they are exporting. They will have to confront the problems of meeting those standards and complying with the much less rigorous European Community requirements in the 1990s. I do not believe that that is a satisfactory long-term prospect. Two of our major producers of motor vehicles are American, so they have the technology because that is what they provide in the United States. There is no reason why that technology should not be transferred.
The alternative is obviously to adopt three-way catalysts for models of all sizes, which is what I would prefer. Such catalysts are capable of dealing with unburnt hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides, and of converting them into harmless carbon dioxide, water and nitrogen. On environmental grounds, that is a clearly preferable course. I recognise that extra costs would be incurred by motor manufacturers and, in due course, by car purchasers. The basic cost of a catalyst is now about £50, although further modifications to an engine have to be made if one is fitted. In West Germany, where identical models with and without autocatalysts capable of meeting the proposed European standards on emission are available, the average price is about £214, and the figures of £500 to £1,000 that have been bandied around by some critics are highly exaggerated.
It is equally untrue to suggest that the fitting of autocatalysts has a dramatically adverse effect on engine performance and fuel economy. The figures that I have seen of tests on continental manufacturers' models suggest reductions in maximum speed for medium-sized cars—between 1·4 and 2 litres—of just over three miles per hour, and for larger cars of more than 2 litres of fractionally more than two miles per hour. On fuel economy, there was a marginal loss for small cars of 1·3 miles per gallon, and for large cars of 0·2 miles per gallon; medium-sized cars actually gained. I have taken part in a scientifically monitored test that confirmed those findings. The results are, I believe, acceptable in the light of the environmental gain offered — even when the cars are pushed, no difference in performance can be found.
The technical case for supporting three-way catalysts rather than the directive's compromise is compelling. This is an area in which Britain has a technological lead. We have taken the necessary steps to reduce the emission of lead, even though I am afraid that customers at the petrol stations have been very slow in demanding the product. That situation cannot last. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will feel able to provide an incentive to encourage the use of unleaded petrol when he makes his Budget statement later in the year. Unleaded petrol is essential if we use autocatalysts.
I do not believe, however, that we should settle for a second-best solution to the problem of exhaust emissions from motor vehicles. It may not, in any case, be possible to sustain the compromise envisaged in the Community directive indefinitely. There is pressure for environmentally clean vehicles to be produced here in the United Kingdom and in continental countries where the Green movement is strong.
It is interesting that a survey by a Scandinavian poll in this country shows that 45 per cent. of the public identified that cars were associated with contributing to acid rain. The adoption of American requirements within the European Community to conform with other continental

countries is bound to reappear on the agenda. It may well enjoy some support from the Japanese and United States-based manufacturers operating in a global market. The threat of further penetration of our markets by such manufacturers cannot be discounted.
Let me put the issues as clearly as I can to my hon. Friend the Minister. Action has had to be taken to control vehicle exhaust emissions. The EEC's directive offers only a partial solution, even though the technical means to resolve the major problems is available. Three-way catalysts are already available for all classes of vehicle. They are relatively cheap and have little adverse effect on engine performance or fuel economy. A British company is the leading manufacturer, and most car producers such as Vauxhall are perfectly capable of adapting their vehicles to use them. It is in our commercial and environmental interests to adopt this solution.
My hon. Friend understands, I know, how technical a subject this is. It is vital that the Government's position is fully explained to satisfy the legitimate environmental concerns which underlie this debate. It will also help to clarify the thinking of the motor manufacturers and their suppliers. I accept that we have moved forward. I had hoped that we could move further and faster. I trust that the Minister will recognise the force of these arguments.

11 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) for raising the question of motor vehicle emissions and their control. As the House will know, he has an excellent record as an assiduous and able advocate for his constituents and the companies operating within his constituency. I am certain that that point will be particularly appreciated by the Vauxhall Motor Company.
My hon. Friend has raised some important points and his proposal justifies careful consideration. I welcome the opportunity to clarify the issue and to place on record the considerable progress that we have made and to say what action is planned for the future.
My hon. Friend correctly identified the importance of the contribution made by road traffic to air pollution. He mentioned specifically carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and lead. I add to that list smoke emissions. In addition to these primary pollutants, vehicle emissions contribute to the formation of secondary pollutants, such as ozone, which he mentioned. The fact that legislation is in place or under discussion within the European Community to deal with all these pollutants demonstrates that the problems are taken seriously. I believe that these measures will lead to a significant improvement in air quality.
First, I should like to deal with the so-called Luxembourg package or compromise as it used to be called. The European Community directive specifies new standards that member states may apply to car emissions. It is to this directive in particular that my hon. Friend has drawn our attention. The Luxembourg package is an agreement made for European cars in the context of the European environment.
In approaching negotiations, the Government aimed for a step-by-step approach designed to tighten standards as improving technology allowed us to do so in a cost-effective manner. An important part of this approach was


to take account of the fuel-efficient lean-burn technology being developed by various manufacturers, including those in the United Kingdom.
The directive in its final form reflects our approach. The standards agreed are a substantial improvement on previous regulations, but car manufacturers are able to take full advantage of new technologies and, in particular, the lean-burn engine. Standards are given for three categories of car — those above 2 litres in engine capacity, those with engines between 1·4 litres and 2 litres and those with engines of less than 1·4 litres.
My hon. Friend has summarised admirably the technical options that car makers will probably adopt to meet the new regulations. This is important. We do indeed expect that some manufacturers of medium cars will decide to fit three-way catalysts to particular models. My hon. Friend will no doubt be pleased to see a growing number of catalyst-equipped cars on the road. The new directive will allow enterprising manufacturers to continue to follow the lean-burn route, but it will not prevent the use of catalysts.
As my hon. Friend said, the Luxembourg directive was finally approved by the Environment Council last December. We have recently committed ourselves to implementing all its provisions. As regards the mandatory application of the exhaust emission standards for small and medium cars, we want to harmonise the dates as far as possible with other manufacturing countries. We are in active discussion with other member states to that end. We also intend to apply the large car standards as soon as practicable.
Predictions of future emissions and the formation of secondary pollutants are made within the Department's air quality research programme. My hon. Friend has raised two further issues essential to predictions of this kind — the growing number of vehicles on our roads, and the fact that pollutant emissions vary with speed. I should like to assure him that both factors have been taken into account in our calculations. It is currently estimated that the implementation of the Luxembourg package will more than offset the effects of traffic growth. Levels of both primary and secondary pollutants will be significantly below today's levels by the year 2000. Clearly, tighter standards of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend, for example, would further reduce pollutant levels. However, the improvements would be subject to a law of diminishing returns both in terms of the air quality improvements achieved and the cost of achieving them.
The costs associated with the new standards can, of course, only be estimated, and as technology develops so the estimates are revised. In the House last year my hon. Friend asked about those costs, and I am pleased to be able to give him more recent information. Our latest estimates are that controlled three-way catalysts would add £370 to the purchase cost of a car before tax. By comparison, the lean-burn plus oxidation catalyst route would add £150. Overall, we estimate that the Luxembourg agreement, as it stands, will add £550 million annually to United Kingdom motoring costs.
By contrast, the costs of applying three-way catalysts to all new cars are estimated to be well in excess of £1 billion a year. Those estimates do not take fully into account the potential for fuel economy improvements with lean-burn vehicles. Looking to the future, this potential, which is lost with three-way catalyst cars, is of major significance. Taking those costs together with the

diminishing benefits obtained, we believe that United States levels of emission control would not be cost-effective for Europe.
Unleaded petrol has a link with the Luxembourg agreement, as the directive gives dates from which member states may insist that all cars must be able to run on unleaded petrol. The United Kingdom insisted on early dates, consistent with our policy of reducing environmental lead. A separate directive covering the distribution of unleaded petrol was approved in 1985. My Department has energetically pursued the directive requirement for balanced distribution of unleaded petrol throughout the United Kingdom by October 1989. This has to be a joint enterprise with the oil and motor industries, and we have set up the machinery for effective co-ordination. Now that the Luxembourg package has been approved, we will be implementing the earliest possible dates for cars to be required to be able to run on unleaded petrol and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be issuing draft regulations for consultation in the near future.
My remarks so far on the Luxembourg directive, in terms of the emission reductions expected and the costs, refer only to the first stage. The directive requires that proposals for a second stage of emission limits for the small car category be discussed this year. We are currently waiting for the Commission to present proposals to the Council.
The 3 December Environment Council agreed a common position on a directive, providing a first stage of limits for particulate emissions from diesel cars. Like the Luxembourg directive, this proposal also includes the provision of a second stage, to be considered in 1989.
The December Environment Council also gave its final approval to a directive limiting for the first time gaseous emissions from heavy diesels. Again, this is a first stage of regulation. Proposals for a second stage will be ready for consideration by the Environment Council by the end of this year. This second stage will further reduce the limits on emissions and introduce a limit on emission of particulates. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport told the First Standing Committee on European Community Documents on 25 March 1987, large diesel engines are now the dominant source of black smoke in urban areas. We shall be pressing the Commission to bring forward tough proposals for the most stringent limits technically and economically feasible.
In summary, we have at our disposal powerful new measures against air pollution from motor vehicles, arid more are to come. The Luxembourg agreement enables us to impose emission limits on cars which give a substantial reduction in primary and secondary pollutants, but which also encourage new and cost-effective technology. We remain convinced as a result of our most recent estimates that the adoption of emission limits for cars equivalent to those of the United States would entail additional costs that would not be justified by the air quality improvement likely to be achieved.
Finally, I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. I know that he has taken a close interest in vehicle emissions and that the Vauxhall Motor Company in his constituency is concerned with the issue. It has been most useful to have the opportunity to discuss these very important matters.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Eleven o 'clock.